,i  .:../.'..  / 


m 


THE  ELEMENTS 


OF 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 


BY 

ANDREW  C.  ZENOS 

'Professor  of  'Biblical  Theology  in  {McConnick  Theological 
Seminary,  Chicago,  III. 


[PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES] 


NEW  YORK 

FUNK  &  WAGNALLS  COMPANY 

LONDON  AND  TORONTO 
1895 


COPYRIGHT,  1895 

BY 
FUNK  &  WAGNALLS  COMPANY 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGES 

CHAPTER  I.    THE  NAME  AND  PLACE  OF  THE  HIGHER 

CRITICISM, 1-13 

Criticism  in  general — Higher  and  Lower  Criticism — 
Distinction  between  them  in  Historical  Method- 
ology— Distinction  sometimes  based  on  kind  of 
evidence  dealt  with  by  each — Sometimes  on  the 
extent  of  application — True  distinction  ;  the  object 
in  view — No  difference  in  importance  between 
them — Name  "  Higher  Criticism  "  arbitrarily  fixed 
and  open  to  objection — "  Literary  Criticism  "  am- 
biguous and  not  preferable — "  Historical  Criti- 
cism "  also  ambiguous — Definition  reached — 
Higher  Criticism  and  Introduction — Higher  Criti- 
cism and  Biblical  Criticism — The  Higher  Criticism 
not  a  set  of  results — Nor  analytical  views  nor 
destructive  theories — But  a  method  of  research. 

CHAPTER  II.    THE   OBJECTS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITI- 
CISM,           14-46 

Aim  legitimate  —  I.  Origin  —  Authorship  —  Impor- 
tance of  some  knowledge  regarding  authors  of 
books — Personality  of  author — His  qualification 
for  his  task — His  occupation — His  habits — Name 
of  author  not  always  given — Sometimes  lost  by 
accident — Sometimes  omitted  intentionally — 
Sometimes  disguised  as  nom  de  plume — Question 
of  genuineness — Question  of  authenticity — Forms 
of  authenticity — Illustrations — Question  of  integ- 
rity— Integrity  how  impaired— By  editorial  re- 
iii 


IV  CONTENTS 

PAGES 

vision — By   accident — By    compilation— Kinds    of 
compilation — Summary  of  questions  as  to  origin — 

II.  Literary  form — Not  always  apparent  at  first 
glance — Must  be  made  subject  of  investigation — 

III.  Value — Adaptation  as  means  toward  an  end — 
General  and  specific  value — Value  of    historical 
writings — Value  .of  religious  writings — Application 
to  the  Bible — Summary  of   question  of   value — 
These  problems  must  be  solved — Yet  their  solution 
not    indispensable — Critical    views   are   working 
hypothesis — Conclusion. 

CHAPTER  III.  THE  METHODS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITI- 
CISM. I.  THE  LITERARY  METHOD,  .  .  .  47-66 

Kinds  of  evidence  used  in  Criticism — External  and 
internal  compared — External  evidence  not  ad- 
mitted— Meaning  of  "  internal  "  as  applied  to  the 
Bible — Methods  classified — I.  Literary  method,  its 
basis — Vocabulary  as  a  means  of  answering  criti- 
cal questions — Use  of  synonyms — Peculiar  use  of 
words — Idioms  and  phrases — Rhetorical  qualities 
of  style — Condition  necessary  for  safe  use  of  these 
data :  exclusion  of  disturbing  factors — Difference 
of  time  of  composition — Of  subject  treated  of — 
Employment  of  amanuenses — Scribes  in  Oriental 
countries — "  Expert"  judgment  as  to  literary  phe- 
nomena— Caution  needed — Conclusion. 

CHAPTER  IV.  THE  METHODS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITI- 
CISM. II.  THE  HISTORICAL  METHOD,  .  .  67-101 

Nature  of  the  historical  method  in  general — Forms  : 
i.  Direct  allusions  to  historical  events — In  some 
cases  very  abundant — Illustrations  (Isaiah,  Jere- 
miah, Ezekiel) — But  often  very  meager — Illustra- 
tions(Joel,  Job,  the  Pentateuch) — 2.  Anachronism — 
Predictive  prophecy  not  anachronism — Illustra- 
tion :  Isaiah's  mention  of  Cyrus — 3.  Argument  from 
silence — (A)  Causes  of  silence — Suppression  of  in- 


CONTENTS.  V 

PAGES 

formation — Insignificance  of  things  omitted — 
Ignorance  by  the  author  of  things  omitted — (B)  In- 
ferences from  such  ignorance — (C)  Applications  of 
the  argument  from  silence — First  application  in 
answering  question  of  authorship  and  date — Condi- 
tions prerequisite  for  safe  use — Things  omitted  must 
be  important — They  must  be  relevant  to  the  subject 
treated  of — There  must  be  no  motive  for  suppress- 
ing them — Illustrations — Second  application  in 
detecting  forgeries — Illustrations — Third  applica- 
tion in  indirectly  determining  historic  situations — 
Illustration  :  silence  of  Samuel  as  to  Mosaic  law — 
Intricacy  of  application  diminishes — Its  value — a 
parallel  and  its  lessons — 4.  Argument  from  con- 
cinnity — Based  on  necessity  of  order — Simple  form 
of  the  argument — Reconstructive  form — Condi- 
tions for  proper  use — (a)  apparent  lack  of  order — 
(£)  reasonableness  of  order  proposed. 

CHAPTER  V.  THE  METHODS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITI- 
CISM. III.  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  CONTENT 
OF  THOUGHT, 102-118 

The  "theological  method" — Characteristics  of 
thought — Indications  of  authorship — Basis  of  Bibli- 
cal theology — Development  of  thought — Limita- 
tions to  the  use  of  the  argument — Development 
not  uniform — Reversions — Degenerations — Theo- 
ries of  evolution — Hegelian  theory — Applied  by 
the  Tubingen  school — Its  failure — Spencerian  evo- 
lution— Its  inadequacy — Proper  uses  of  the  argu- 
ment— i.  In  making  a  preliminary  sketch — 2.  In 
corroborating  results  otherwise  attained — Cumula- 
tive use  of  arguments  in  case  they  converge 
toward  the  same  result — Weakness  in  case  they 
fail  to  converge — No  verdict  in  case  they  diverge — 
Critical  "  divination  " — Not  a  magical  power — 
But  skill  in  the  use  of  the  methods  described. 


yi  CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

CHAPTER  VI.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  AND  ORIENTAL 

ARCHEOLOGY, 119-133 

The  nature  of  Archeology — Recent  development — 
Research  in  Egypt — In  Assyria — In  Palestine — 
Materials  accumulated — Their  decipherment — 
Bearing  on  the  Bible — Relation  to  criticism — Ar- 
cheology not  infallible — Yet  must  be  used — Some 
positions  established — i.  Biblical  history  proved  to 
be  trustworthy — 2.  Biblical  history  illumined — 
3.  Literary  methods  cleared  up — 4.  Light  thrown 
on  the  relations  of  various  traditions — Genesis  and 
Semitic  traditions — 5.  Light  on  critical  ques- 
tions— Archeology  and  interpretation. 

CHAPTER  VII.  POSTULATES  IN  THE  USE  OF  THE 

HIGHER  CRITICISM, 134-151 

Equipment  needed  for  the  use  of  methods — Pre- 
suppositions a  part  of  the  equipment — All  science 
based  on  presuppositions — The  exact  sciences — 
History — Philosophical  postulates  as  presupposi- 
tions— Standpoints  resulting  from  postulates — 
I.  That  of  Naturalism — Illustrations :  Baur,  Kue- 
nen — Results  unsatisfactory — II.  Traditionalism 
also  unsatisfactory  —  III.  Anti-traditionalistic 
standpoint — Wholesale  rejection  of  tradition  un- 
satisfactory— IV.  The  comprehensive  standpoint — 
Discriminates  between  traditions — Uses  all  valu- 
able data. 

CHAPTER  VIII.    DOCTRINAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  HIGHER 

CRITICISM, 152-172 

Power  of  the  Bible  depends  on  what  men  think  of 
it — Its  origin — Partly  human — Character  of  human 
authors  determines  value,  at  least  in  part — Fraudu-  < 

lent  intention  vitiates  the  whole  moral  character 
of  the  product — Force  of  religious  truth  depends 
partly  on  the  trust  reposed  in  the  teacher — Reason 
cannot  be  an  infallible  guide  in  judging  of  validity 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

PAGES 

'  of  all  truth,  as  it  is  weakened  by  sin — An  objective 
rule  of  faith  needed — Criticism  affects  the  form  of 
faith — I.  Rationalism — Meaning  of  the  term — In 
exegesis — In  criticism — It  is  unscientific — Makes 
human  nature  contradict  itself — II.  Evangelical- 
ism— Faith  based  on  good  reasons — Essentials  of 
evangelicalism — Jesus  Christ  as  final  authority — 
Two  wings  of  evangelicalism — The  right  wing 
assumes  that  Jesus  has  decided  the  questions  by 
using  the  language  He  used — The  left  wing 
assumes  that  He  left  them  open — Doctrine  of 
inspiration — Difference  between  the  fact  of  inspira- 
tion and  theories  of  its  nature  and  mode — Fact 
accepted  by  all,  theories  differ — Criticism  may 
lead  to  the  modification  of  theories — It  cannot 
affect  the  fact. 

CHAPTER  IX.  HISTORY  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM, 

ANCIENT  AND  MEDIEVAL,  ....  173-191 

Criticism  very  old — Though  not  long  a  science — 
Periods  in  its  history — I.  Ancient  period — i.  Pre- 
Christian  age — 2.  Early  Christian  age — Origen — 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria — Presuppositions — Com- 
mon view  of  the  Old  Testament — Opponents  of 
Christianity  —  Celsus — Porphyry — Later  Christian 
fathers — Eusebius — Disuse  and  disappearance — 
3.  The  Reformation  age — Luther — Carlstadt — Cal- 
vin —  Seventeenth  century  —  Hobbes  —  Spinoza — 
Roman  Catholics — R.  Simon — Clericus — Van  Dale 
— Opposition — Carpzov — Vitringa. 

CHAPTER  X.     MODERN  CRITICISM   OF  THE  OLD   TES- 
TAMENT,            192-227 

II.  Modern  period — Separate  growth  of  Old  andjNew 
Testament  criticism — The  Hextateuch  question — 
Literary  argument  —  Astruc  —  Eichhorn  —  J.  D. 
Michaelis — Results  :  The  document  hypothesis — 
Geddes — Vater — The  fragment  hypothesis — Ilgen 


Vlii  CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

— Development  of  the  historical  argument — De- 
Wette — The  supplement  hypothesis — Von  Bohlen 
— Bleek — Tuch  —  Knobel  —  Stahelin  —  Lengerke — 
Ewald — Crystallization  theory — Hupfeld — Devel- 
opment of  the  theological  argument — Vatke — 
George  —  Reuss  —  Graf — Kuenen  —  Wellhausen — 
Grafian  theory — Grafian  school  in  Germany — In 
England — Colenso — In  America — In  France — The 
Dillman  school — Older  Conservative  criticism  in 
England — Home — Earlier  German  Conservatives 
— Later  German  Conservatives — Hengstenberg — 
Keil — Influence  of  Hengstenberg — Recent  English 
Conservatives — American  Conservatives — Kloster- 
mann  and  his  unique  view — Question  of  Isaiah — 
Early  discussions — Recent  phase — Question  of 
Daniel — Genuineness  denied — Defense — Questions 
in  the  minor  Prophets — Jonah — Zechariah — Ques- 
tions in  the  Historical  Books — Judges — Samuel — 
Kings — Chronicles — Ruth — Esther — Questions  in 
the  Poetical  Books — Job  —  Psalms — Proverbs  — 
Song  of  Songs — Ecclesiastes — Latest  French  criti- 
cism of  Vernes  and  Havet. 

CHAPTER  XI.    THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  IN  THE  NEW 

TESTAMENT, 228-248 

Interest  in  the  New  Testament  at  first  centers 
around  the  text — R.  Simon — His  opponents — First 
phase  of  criticism — Semler  and  Naturalism — Eich- 
horn — Rise  of  the  Synoptic  problem — The  question 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel — Defense  of  traditional 
views — J.  L.  Hug — Second  phase — Schleiermacher 
— DeWette — Credner — Other  followers  of  Schleier- 
macher— Third  phase — The  Tubingen  school — 
Baur — His  early  followers — Latest  phase  of  the 
"  tendency  criticism  " — Strauss — Bruno  Bauer — 
Evangelical  opposition  to  Tubingen — Ritschl — His 
standpoint — His  followers — Independent  evangeli- 
cal criticism — Weiss — Beyschlag — English  scholars 


CONTENTS.  IX 

PAGES 

— French  critics — Latest  negative  criticism — Steck 
— Volter  and  the  Apocalypse — Spitta  and  the 
Acts — Problems  in  New  Testament  criticism — The 
Synoptic  Problem — The  Problem  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel— The  Problem  of  the  Acts— The  Problem  of 
the  Pauline  Epistles — The  Problem  of  Hebrews — 
The  Petrine  Problem — The  Problem  of  James — 
The  Problem  of  Jude — The  Problem  of  the  Johan- 
nine  Epistles — The  Problem  of  the  Apocalypse. 


PREFACE. 


THE  Higher  Criticism,  as  a  method  of  study, 
has  now  been  applied  to  the  Bible  for  a  long  time. 
Many  controversies  have  been  waged  in  its  name. 
A  voluminous  literature  has  grown  around  it.  Its 
rights  and  claims,  its  validity  and  futility,  its  suc- 
cesses and  failures  have  been  put  forward  and  com- 
bated in  many  forms  and  under  many  titles.  It 
has  been  lauded  and  extolled  as  if  it  were  a  new  sun 
destined  to  flood  the  field  of  Biblical  literature  with 
light  ;  and  it  has  been  suspected,  maligned,  and 
repudiated  as  a  source  of  mischief  and  unbelief. 
And  this  chiefly  because  there  has  been  all  along 
such  a  difference  of  ideas  as  to  what  the  Higher 
Criticism  is.  Those  who  have  concerned  themselves 
with  it  the  most  have  never  taken  time  to  define 
and  describe  it  except  in  the  most  general  terms. 
Thus,  for  lack  of  better  information,  some  assume 
it  to  be  what  criticism  is  popularly  supposed  to  be — 
fault-finding — and  resent  its  application  to  such  a 
book  as  the  Bible.  Others,  better  informed,  take  it 
to  be  an  estimate  of  the  value  and  validity  of  that 
which  is  criticized.  Others  yet  make  it  the  equiva- 
lent of  a  system  of  results  as  to  the  origin  and 
nature  of  the  books  of  the  Bible.  Still  others 
identify  it  with  a  certain  attitude  of  mind  toward 

xi 


xii  PREFACE. 

the  Bible,  or  a  certain  group  of  philosophical  and 
religious  views  or  principles  commonly  known  as 
rationalism. 

It  would  appear  to  be  high  time  for  an  effort  to 
clear  this  confusion  by  propounding  the  question, 
What  is  the  Higher  Criticism  ?  with  a  view  to  finding 
a  detailed  and  precise  answer.  We  shall  not  dare 
to  hope  that  our  answer  should  be  accepted  as 
satisfactory  by  everybody.  But  whether  universally 
accepted  as  satisfactory  or  not,  it  cannot  but  serve  at 
least  two  classes  of  readers.  First,  in  the  world  of 
students  who  are  about  to  approach  the  questions  of 
criticism  as  a  part  of  their  preparation  for  teaching 
and  preaching  the  Bible,  an  aid  to  clear  notions  of 
what  criticism  is  cannot  fail  to  be  of  some  use.  It  is 
true  the  world  of  students  has  its  competent  guides 
into  this  field  ;  but  the  competent  teacher  knows 
better  than  any  one  else  the  value  of  a  summary,  in 
systematic  form,  of  such  a  subject  in  the  hands  of  his 
pupils.  It  saves  him  much  valuable  time  for  ad- 
vanced work  in  the  praxis  of  the  Higher  Criticism, 
and  furnishes  him  with  an  outline  and  system  for 
explanations  which  otherwise  might  appear,  and  be, 
desultory  and  scattered. 

In  the  second  place,  such  an  exposition  of  the 
methods,  principles,  and  relations  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  to  allied  subjects  is,  in  the  present  stage  of 
Biblical  learning,  bound  to  be  of  some  use  to  the 
intelligent  layman  as  a  guide  in  estimating  the 
results  presented  to  him  in  the  name  of  the  science. 
Is  there  any  legitimate  sphere  for  such  a  thing  as 
the  Higher  Criticism?  Elementary  as  this  question 
may  appear  to  the  well  informed,  it  is  asked  by 


PREFACE.  Xlll 

many  earnest,  intelligent,  fair-minded  men.  As  all 
the  answers  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to  the  same 
questions  are  not  the  same,  how  shall  we  distinguish 
between  the  valid  and  safe  and  the  futile  and 
unsafe  ?  These  questions  an  analytic  exposition  of 
the  Higher  Criticism  will  help  men  to  answer. 

This  is  the  first  effort  in  this  direction.  To  the 
author's  knowledge  there  is  no  single  treatise  in 
which  a  simple  expository  and  non-controversial 
attempt  is  made  to  describe  the  science  and  art  of 
the  Higher  Criticism.  He  has  been  compelled  to 
go  over  the  books  of  a  large  number  of  standard 
critics  in  order,  by  a  careful  observation  of  their 
methods  of  procedure  and  analysis  of  the  principles 
underlying  their  work,  to  gather  the  data  for  a 
science.  If  some  one  else,  taking  the  suggestion  of 
this  work,  shall  present  to  the  world  a  completely 
and  universally  satisfactory  exposition  of  the  science 
and  art  of  Higher  Criticism  he  will  feel  abundantly 
rewarded  for  his  labors. 

A.  C.  ZENOS. 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  September,  1895. 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    NAME    AND    PLACE    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

CRITICISM  in  the  broadest  sense  is  the  act  of  judg- 
ing on  the  merits  of  any  production  or  performance. 
Judgments,  however,  may  be  formed  Criticism  in 
correctly  or  incorrectly,  systemati-  general, 
cally  or  at  random.  To  make  them  systematically 
and  carefully,  it  is  necessary  that  one  should  be 
acquainted  with  the  safest  methods  and  the  best 
ideals  and  standards  available  for  the  purpose. 
And  in  order  to  impart  the  information,  and  produce 
the  skill  implied  in  this,  an  inclusive  science  is 
organized  which  takes  the  name  of  criticism. 
Thus,  in  the  practical  application  of  it,  criticism 
passes  from  the  act  to  the  art  of  correctly  judging 
of  the  merits  of  productions. 

But  in  this  general  sense  criticism  is  naturally  a 
many-sided  art  and  science.  Every  form  of  pro- 
duction, whether  in  the  field  of  the 

e    i  •       .LU  r    it.       .e  •  Higher     and 

useful  or  m  that  of  the  fine  arts,  in    Lower     criti- 
literature  or  in  any  other  sphere,  must 
have  its  criticism.     Which  of  these  many  sides  of 
criticism    is    represented    by  the    phrase    Higher 


2  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

Criticism  ?  Naturally,  in  seeking  for  an  answer  to 
this  question,  one  turns  to  the  adjective  in  the 
phrase.  The  qualifying  term  "  higher"  implies  its 
correlative  and  converse  "lower."  We  might, 
therefore,  undertake  to  reach  a  definition  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  by  comparing  it  with  the  Lower. 
A  very  cursory  glance,  however,  will  convince  us 
that,  although  we  might  ascertain  the  relations  of 
Higher  and  Lower  Criticism  by  such  a  comparison, 
we  would  not  obtain  a  precise  definition  of  our 
science  or  art;  because  the  terms  "higher"  and 
"lower,"  as  commonly  applied  to  criticism,  are 
purely  arbitrary  and  conventional.  And  like  all 
other  terms  arbitrarily  fixed  they  presuppose  a 
knowledge  of  the  technical  use  to  which  they  have 
been  put;  otherwise  they  are  misleading.  The  re- 
lations of  the  two  branches  of  criticism  suggested 
by  the  primary  meanings  of  the  adjectives  are  not 
borne  out  by  usage.  These  adjectives  point  to  the 
precedence  of  the  Lower  and  the  sequence  of  the 
Higher,  as  if  the  former  belonged  to  a  more  ele- 
mentary and  the  latter  to  a  more  advanced  stage  in 
the  process  of  investigation.  Or,  perhaps,  the 
Lower  might  be  supposed  to  involve  a  more  prelimi- 
nary and  cruder  form  of  work  as  compared  with  the 
Higher.  But  these  suggestions  are  not  true  to  the 
facts. 

On  the  other  hand  any  attempt  to  define  the  mean- 
ing of  these  terms  independently  of  the  adjectives 
in  Historical  "higher"  and  "lower"  is  extremely 
Methodology.  difficult,  because  usage  regarding  them 
is  not  uniform.  The  terms  are  not  fixed  in  such  a 
way  as  to  command  the  assent  of  all  those  who 


NAME    AND    PLACE    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.       3 

employ  them.  In  purely  historical  methodology 
the  distinction  between  the  Lower  and  Higher  Criti- 
cism comes  nearest  to  coinciding  with  the  etymo- 
logical difference  between  the  adjectives  in  the 
phrases.  Here  the  Lower  Criticism  deals  with  the 
basal  question,  whether  alleged  sources  of  history 
are  at  all  admissible  as  such;  and  if  this  question  is 
answered  affirmatively,  the  Higher  Criticism  deals 
with  the  question  which~£Een  arises  (but  not  till 
then),  what  degree  of  weight  should  be  conceded  to 
such  acknowledged  sources?  whether,  i.e.,  they 
give  us  that  which  is  certain,  that  which  is  probable, 
that  which  is  possible,  or  that  which  is  impossible. 
But  this  distinction  is  hardly  known  beyond  the 
narrow  field  of  pure  historical  investigation. 

Another  distinction  between  these  departments 
of  criticism  is  drawn  on  the  ground  of  method  purely 
and  simply.  The  Lower  Criticism  is 
made  that  branclTT^cntTc^m~wKch  ti  notion  re- 
relies  mainly  or  wholly  on  external 
helps  for  a  decision,  and  the  Higher  that  which 
relies  on  internal  phenomena.  This  distinction  un- 
doubtedly expresses  a  truth;  but  it  does  not  exhaust 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase  as  prevalently  used.  It 
does  not  include  those  cases  in  which  the  Higher 
Criticism  seeks  the  aid  of  helps  outside  of  produc- 
tions themselves  individually  considered,  but  not 
outside  of  a  circle  or  group  to  which  they  belong. 

A  still  different  distinction  has  been  attempted  by 
those  who  believe  that  the  Lower  Criticism  should 
be  limited  to  the  examination  of  the 

,    .      ,.        Still  another. 

genuineness  or  spunousness  of  indi- 
vidual letters  or  words  and  the  Higher  to  the  ex- 


4  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

amination  in  the  same  respects  of  entire  sections 
of  writings.  Thus  the  Century  Dictionary :  "The 
Higher  Criticism  concerns  writings  as  a  whole;  the 
Lower  the  integrity  or  other  characteristics  of 
particular  parts  or  passages."  This  accords  with 
the  usage  which  has  prevailed  only  on  the  question 
of  genuineness;  /.  e.,  the  Lower  Criticism  examines 
words  or  passages  as  to  their  genuineness,  and  as 
far  as  the  Higher  deals  with  the  question  of  genuine- 
ness of  books,  or  large  sections  of  books,  there  is  a 
contact. 

The  prevalent  usage  can  best  be  denned  from  the 

point  of  view  of  the  objects  aimed  at  in  each  branch. 

The  Lower  Criticism  concerns  itself 

True    distinc-      — »~-_  ,    , 

tion:    object  in  with  the  text  of  writings;  the  Higher, 

View  .      .  -.—-  _- _^^^*  HVHHV_£^ . ,-w^. 

with  their  origin,  form,  and  value.  If 
this  distinction  be  allowed  as  proper,  it  appears  that 
the  relations  of  these  two  branches  of  criticism  can- 
not be  put  in  the  terms  of  precedence  and  sequence. 
The  problem  before  the  textual  critic  is  to  ascertain 
whether  there  are  any  deviations  in  a  given  text  or 
copy  of  a  work  from  the  original  document  in  which 
the  work  was  promulgated — the  autograph — and  to 
restore  the  original  text  as  nearly  as  possible.  This 
the  textual  critic  attempts  to  do  by  a  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  text,  word  for  word,  and  even  syl- 
lable for  syllable.  The  question  he  asks  is,  "What 
did  the  author  write?"  To  answer  this  question  he 
uses  a  carefully  collated  and  tested  apparatus,  basing 
the  value  of  the  different  parts  of  the  apparatus 
very  often  on  a  knowledge  of  who  the  author  was. 
So  that  while  it  is  true  that  the  ends  which  are 
sought  by  the  Higher  Criticism  are  furthered  by  the 


NAME    AND    PLACE    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.       5 

purification  of  the  text,  i.  e.,  its  restoration  as  nearly 
as  possible  to  its  original  form;  it  is  true  on  the 
other  hand  that  the  attainment  of  these  ends  does 
not  depend  altogether  on  the  previous  exercise  of 
the  textual  criticism  as  a  condition  sine  qua  non. 
For  practical  purposes  a  reasonable  certainty  of  a 
reasonably  correct  text  is  sufficient  for  such  work. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  order  to  use  the  Lower  Criti- 
cism with  the  greatest  precision,  it  is  necessary  to 
know  something  of  the  author,  of  his  style  and  his 
surroundings;  of  the  idiomatic  uses  of  language  dur- 
ing the  period  in  which  he  flourished,  and  many  other 
of  the  conditions  under  which  he  carried  on  his  work, 
and  the  forces  which  influenced  him  in  giving  it  the 
precise  form  which  he  gave  it.  All  this  information 
must  be  sought  for,  partly  at  least,  through  the 
Higher  Criticism.  These  two  branches  are  then 
independent  of  one  another.  And  yet  they  are 
mutually  helpful  ;  the  best  and  surest  results  from 
either  can  only  be  attained  by  a  wise  and  correct 
use  of  the  other.  But  one  may  begin  with  either, 
and  prosecute  his  work  with  and  call  the  other  to 
his  aid  as  he  proceeds. 

Nor  can  the  terms  "higher  "and  "  lower  "  be 
taken  as  equivalent  to  the  terms  "  more  important" 
and  "less  important."  The  textual  NO  difference 
criticism  is  just  as  important  as  the  in  ImP°rtance- 
higher;  for  the  purposes  of  correct  interpretation 
it  may  even  be  of  vastly  greater  importance. 
It  may  make  very  little  difference  sometimes 
as  to  who  wrote  a  given  passage,  if  we  can  only 
know  that  it  is  free  from  corruptions  as  it  stands 
before  us.  It  is  more  important  under  such 


6  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

circumstances  to  test  the  accuracy  of  the  text 
by  the  methods  of  the  Lower  Criticism  than  to  find 
out  its  origin  by  the  Higher  Criticism. 

It  appears  thus  that  the  term  "higher,"  in  the 

phrase  Higher  Criticism,  cannot  be  interpreted  or 

usage     has    understood  either  in  itself  or  by  com- 

bcen  arbitrary.      parjson    with    its   correlative    "  lower  " 

in  the  phrase  Lower  Criticism.  The  meaning  of 
the  adjectives  gives  no  clew  to  its  meaning,  and 
usage  differs  so  much  as  to  the  distinction  that  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  it  with  precision  by  con- 
sulting usage.  It  remains  only  to  take  the  word  as 
a  technical  term  arbitrarily  fixed  by  a  consensus  of 
writers.  As  such  it  should  not  be  loaded  with  the 
suggestions  either  of  its  etymology  or  of  the  corre- 
lated branch  of  the  Lower  Criticism. 

This  arbitrary  determination    of   a  term  is,  of 

course,  not  free  from  objections.     When  it  is  not 

Term  open  to    clearly  understood  that  the  use  made 

objections.          Qf  it  jg  pureiv  conventional,  a  term  so 

fixed  is  apt  to  be  criticized  and  substitutes  offered. 
This  has  been  precisely  the  fate  of  the  term  under 
consideration,  and  if,  in  the  course  of  its  history,  a 
clearer  and  less  objectionable  substitute  had  been 
offered,  it  might  have  easily  displaced  it.  But  as  a 
matter  of  fact  no  substitute  has  been  proposed 
which  is  not  liable  to  equally  serious  objections. 
But  as  between  phrases  open  to  equally  weighty 
objection,  that  one  would,  of  course,  survive  which 
had  in  its  favor  the  advantage  of  growingly  uni- 
form usage.  This  advantage  the  phrase  Higher 
Criticism  has  had  over  all  other  proposed  sub- 
stitutes. 


NAME    AND   PLACE   OP   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.       7 

It  has  been  suggested,  for  instance,  that  the  term 
"  literary "  might  take  the  place  of  the  term 
"  higher"  in  the  phrase  Higher 

"  Literary 

Criticism.      But  it  must  be  apparent    criticism"  not 

,  .  better. 

from  the  outset  that  this  would  be 
hardly  an  improvement  as  far  as  clearness  is  con- 
cerned. The  new  title  would  not  be  definite 
enough,  either  in  its  etymological  suggestions  or  in 
its  history.  As  already  shown  above,  the  phrase 
"literary  criticism"  broadly  used  is  inclusive  of  all 
the  investigations  called  forth  by  a  writing.  It 
includes  that  process  which  concerns  itself- with  the 
examination  of  the  aesthetic  qualities  of  literary 
productions  as  well  as  that  which  examines  their 
credentials  as  sources  of  information.  In  this  inclu- 
sive sense  it  is  evidently  too  broad.  But  it  is  used 
also  in  narrower  senses,  as  when  it  is  limited  to  the 
examination  of  the  qualities  of  a  literary  production 
which  are  calculated  to  please  and  attract;  qualities 
that  must  be  judged  by  the  taste  rather  than  by  the 
reason;  that  must  be  pronounced  possessing  or  lack- 
ing beauty  rather  than  conforming  or  lacking  in 
conformity  to  fact.  In  this  sense  literary  criticism 
is  a  part  of  art  criticism,  and  is  exactly  analogous  to 
the  criticism  of  paintings,  music,  or  any  other  pro- 
duction in  the  fine  arts.  Evidently,  in  this  sense 
also,  it  is  not  an  acceptable  substitute  for  the  term 
it  is  proposed  to  displace.  Finally,  the  phrase  lit- 
erary criticism  is  used  to  designate  that  method 
of  research  which,  upon  the  basis  of  the  literary 
phenomena  only  of  a  writing,  seeks  for  the  solution  of 
the  questions  of  the  origin,  literary  form,  and  value 
of  writings.  In  this  sense  it  is  a  part  of  the  Higher 


8  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Criticism,  or  an  instrument  to  be  used  along  with 
other  means  of  kindred  nature  for  the  discovery  of 
facts  and  their  verification;  as  such  it  should  cer- 
tainly not  be  wrested  from  this  altogether  proper, 
but  limited,  sense  to  the  broader  use  of  supplanting 
that  of  which  it  is  only  a  part  or  a  tool. 

It  has   been   sometimes    said   that    the   Higher 

Criticism  is  historical  criticism.     The  statement  is 

perfectly   true,   taken   in  a  loose    or 

"Historical  / 

criticism"  not  general  sense.  It  is  not  true,  how- 
better. 

ever,  in  any  such  sense  as  will  warrant 

the  substitution  of  the  apparently  simpler  and  easier 
phrase  of  historical  criticism  for  Higher  Criticism. 
The  infelicities  of  such  a  substitution  would  be  still 
greater  than  those  already  pointed  out  as  likely  to 
attend  the  calling  of  the  Higher  simply  literary 
criticism.  Historical  criticism  is  in  its  strictest 
sense  the  verification  or  discovery  of  facts,  not  the 
verification  or  discovery  of  facts  regarding  the 
literary  sources  of  history.  The  historical  facts 
which  it  strives  to  verify  may  not  be  contained  or 
found  in  literary  sources  but  in  monuments,  in 
traditions,  folklore,  and  legends.  Thus,  to  enter 
upon  an  investigation  whose  object  is  the  ascertain- 
ment of  the  truth  of  certain  alleged  facts  is  to  enter 
on  a  process  of  historical  criticism.  But  to  enter  on 
the  investigation  of  the  nature  of  certain  documents 
purporting  to  be  sources  of  information  with  refer- 
ence to  historical  facts  is  to  undertake  a  research 
either  in  diplomatics  (/.  <?.,  the  art  of  deciphering 
old  documents)  or  in  Higher  Criticism. 

The  combination  of    the  terms    historical    and 
literary,  in  the  phrase  historico-literary   criticism, 


NAME    AND    PLACE   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.       9 

besides  resulting  in  a  cumbersome  phrase  is  liable  to 
the  same  difficulties  as  all  the  other  terms  already 
considered,  and  should  not  be  seriously  entertained. 
While,  however,  we  thus  distinguish  between  lit- 
erary and  historical  criticism  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  Higher  Criticism  on  the  other,  we  recognize  the 
affinities  and  common  ground  occupied  by  both. 

On  the  whole  it  must  be  evident  that  none  -of  the 
substitutes  would  be  improvements  over  the  now 
famous  name  coined  by  Eichhorn.  Definition 
And  the  result  of  our  inquiry  into  the  reached- 
name  of  this  branch  of  investigation  may  be  summed 
up  in  the  following  definition  :  The  Higher  Criti- 
cism is  the  discovery  and  verification  of  the  facts 
regarding  the  origin,  form,  and  value  of  literary  pro- 
ductions upon  the  basis  of  their  internal  character- 
istics and  contents. 

As  thus  defined  the  Higher  Criticism  is  applied 
to  the  investigation  of  the  Books  of  the  Bible, 
especially  the  Old  Testament.  It  ~ 

"  Higher  Criti- 

then     becomes    almost     synonymous  cism "  and  "  in- 

troduction." 

with  the  branch  of  'study  commonly 
known  as  Old  Testament  Isagogics  or  Introduc- 
tion; in  fact  it  is  very  often  spoken  of  as  if  it 
were  simple  another  name  for  Old  Testament 
Introduction.  It  is  more  correct,  to  say  that  it 
is  a  branch  of  Introduction.  The  latter  is  broader 
and  includes  all  that  may  be  needed  as  a  prepara- 
tion for  the  study  of  the  Scriptures.  Besides  the 
more  especial  questions  of  origin,  literary  form,  and 
value,  Introduction  includes  the  consideration  of 
the  more  general  questions  of  the  languages  of  the 
books,  of  the  text  with  all  the  principles  involved 


10  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

in  textual  criticism,  of  aids  to  and  principles  of 
interpretation.  Being  so  much  broader  than  mere 
criticism,  Introduction  should  therefore  be  kept 
carefully  distinct  from  it. 

It  has  been  hinted  already  in  the  above  distinc- 
tion between  the  Higher  Criticism  and  Introduction 
that  both  terms  are  commonly  applied 

Higher    Criti- 
cism and  Bibii-  to  the  investigation  of  biblical  ques- 

cal  Criticism.  .  , 

tions.  This  association  of  the  term 
with  the  Bible  as  a  special  field  of  research  is 
neither  necessary  nor  strictly  scientific.  There 
may  exist  and  actually  exists  a  Higher  Criticism  of 
the  classics,  of  the  Vedas,  of  the  patristic  literature, 
etc.  It  is  not  always  known  under  the  same  name, 
but  always  has  the  same  ends  in  view,  viz.,  the  dis- 
covery of  the  facts  regarding  the  origin,  farm,  and 
value  of  the  writings  under  examination  in  each 
case.  Naturally  its  application  has  depended  some- 
what on  the  nature  of  the  special  sphere  in  which 
it  has  been  made;  and  the  results  have  differed  very 
much,  according  to  the  amount  and  kind  of  evidence 
in  existence  in  each  case.. 

The  historical  ground  for  the  appropriation  of  the 
name  to  the  field  of  the  Old  Testament  is  no  doubt 
due  to  the  first  use  of  it  by  Eichhorn  in  this 
field,  and  the  fact  that  it  immediately  found 
enthusiastic  advocates  and  equally  zealous  oppo- 
nents who  gave  the  name  a  special  significance, 
though  a  meretricious  one.  Having  been  bandied 
about  in  animated  debates  regarding  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, beginning  with  the  Pentateuch,  it  naturally 
became  associated  with  this  department  of  study. 
It  would  aid  materially  in  the  clearing  of  much 


NAME   AND    PLACE   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.    11 

prejudice  and  confusion  on  the  subject  if  it  could 
be  universally  understood  that  the  Higher  Criticism 
is  not  to  be  limited  to  the  investigation  of  Biblical 
subjects,  far  less  to  subjects  connected  with  the  Old 
Testament  only. 

In  another  direction  confusion  has  arisen  in  the 
popular  mind  between  the  methods  and  the  results, 
real  or  alleged,  of  the  Higher  Criti-  Not  a  8et  of 
cism.  The  phrase  is  often  used  when  results- 
what  is  meant  is  the  system  of  conclusions  claimed 
to  have  been  reached  by  a  certain  class  of  scholars 
who  have  made  use  of  the  Higher  Criticism  as  a 
method  of  study.  Thus  we  hear  of  such  or  such 
scholar  being  an  opponent  of  the  Higher  Criticism, 
or  such  another  as  believing  in  or  being  a  supporter 
of  it.  In  reality  there  are  no  opponents  of  the 
Higher  Criticism.  Those  who  are  said  to  be  such 
are  simply  skeptical  as  to  the  validity  of  the  use 
made  of  this  method  of  research,  and  consequently 
of  the  truth  of  the  conclusions  reached  by  such 
improper  use.  In  .vindicating  their  opposition  to 
results  so  obtained,  -true  scholars  use  the  very 
method  of  which,  in  the  confusion  of  language,  they 
are  said  to  be  opponents. 

Sometimes  the  use  of  the  phrase  is  even  more 
improper  and  limited  than  this.  It  includes  only 
the  views  which  may  be  called  for  the  Or  anaiyticai 
sake  of  convenience  "  analytic,"  such  views- 
as  the  theory  that  the  Pentateuch  (Hexateuch) 
consists  of  documents  by  different  authors  and 
written  at  different  times,  but  put  together  later 
than  the  Mosaic  period  into  their  present  shape. 
Such  is  also  the  view  according  to  which  the 


12  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

books  of  Isaiah,  Zechariah,  and  Job  are  par- 
titioned into  several  smaller  books,  and  these  are 
ascribed  to  other  times  and  authors  than  those 
to  whom  they  have  generally  been  believed  to  be 
due.  Similar  to  this  use  of  the  phrase  is  another 
which  makes  it  synonymous  with  destructive  criti- 
Destructive  cism.  It  is  supposed  to  lead  only  to 
theories.  ^g  unsettling  of  views  already  held, 

without  substituting  others  more  plausible.  It  is 
evident  that,  before  any  progress  can  be  made  in 
commending  the  work  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to 
the  public,  this  confusion  must  be  cleared  away.  It 
must  be  insisted  that  the  Higher  Criticism  does  not 
consist  in  any  group  of  views,  either  divisive  or 
destructive.  It  is  a  weapon  that  may  be  used  for 
the  purpose  of  combining  as  well  as  of  dividing,  of 
constructing  as  well  as  of  demolishing.  If  it  were 
to  be  discovered  that  two  books  always  ascribed  to 
separate  authors  were  in  reality  two  parts  of  one 
book  by  the  same  author,  the  discovery  might  be 
made  through  the  application  of  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism, or  at  any  rate  it  would  be  tested  by  it.  It  has 
been  metaphorically  represented  as  a  scalpel,  but 
the  metaphor,  like  all  other  figures  of  speech,  is 
useful  only  when  it  is  understood  that  it  expresses 
part  of  the  reality.  It  is  only  one  of  its  functions 
to  act  as  a  scalpel.  Its  relation  to  the  old  and  new 
views  respectively  is  one  of  indifference.  It  may 
result  in  the  confirmation  of  the  old  as  well  as  in 
the  substitution  of  the  new  for  the  old.  It  is  as 
much  fitted  to  enable  the  student  to  test  new  views, 
and  reject  them  if  they  prove  to  be  unfounded,  as 
to  sift  old  ones  and  lead  to  their  setting  aside.  It 


NAME   AND    PLACE   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.    13 

is  no  respecter  of  antiquity  or  novelty.  Its  aim  is 
to  discover  and  verify  the  truth;  to  bring  facts  to 
light,  whether  these  validate  or  invalidate  previously 
held  opinions. 

It  is  the  more  necessary  to  insist  on  this  distinc- 
tion of  method  and  results  in  speaking  of  this  sub- 
ject as  the  confusion  has  not  been  altogether 
limited  to  the  popular  conception  of  it,  but  has 
reacted  on  the  world  of  scholarship  to  an  appreci- 
able extent.  It  has  made  itself  felt  in  discussions 
carried  on  by  theologically  educated  ministers;  and 
that  not  alone  on  one  side  of  the  controversy 
regarding  the  results,  but  on  both. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

THE  attempt  to  find  the  precise  nature  and  place 
of  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  to  associate  it  with 
object  proper  other  kindred  branches  of  study,  has 
and  important.  airea(jy  incidentally  revealed  the  fact 
that  its  object  in  general  is  the  solution  of  all  ques- 
tions referring  to  the  origin,  iheform,  and  the  value 
of  literary  productions.  That  it  is  desirable  to 
answer  such  questions  wherever  they  occur  no  one 
will  dispute.  This  is  as  readily  conceded  by  con- 
servatives as  it  is  claimed  by  radicals  in  criti- 
cism.* It  is  plain  that  every  production,  in  order 
to  be  fully  understood,  must  be  studied  with  as 
full  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  of  its  origin  and 
nature  as  is  obtainable.  This  knowledge  is  not  to 
be  despised  in  looking  at  any  literary  work ;  least 
of  all  in  dealing  with  the  Bible.  A  true  love  of  and 
a  living  interest  in  the  Scriptures  will  rather  lead 
to  greater  diligence  in  securing  all  the  information 
that  can  possibly  be  obtained.  Moreover,  both 
scientific  regard  for  the  truth,  and  the  practical 

*  "  I  regard  the  Higher  Criticism  as  not  only  legitimate  but  as 
useful,  and  indiscriminate  condemnation  of  it  as  foolish.  Genuine 
criticism  is  nothing  but  the  search  after  truth  ;  and  of  this  there 
cannot  be  too  much," — C.  M.  Mead,  Christ  and  Criticism,  Preface. 
Cf . ,  also,  article  in  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  October, 
1892,  p.  797. 


THE   OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.          15 

importance  of  such  information,  when  secured,  in 
determining  the  content  and  meaning  of  the  books 
in  question,  make  it  imperative  that  the  questions 
of  origin,  form,  and  value,  if  they  can  be  answered 
at  all,  should  be  answered  correctly.  This  will 
appear  the  more  clearly  as  we  proceed  to  examine 
separately  and  more  in  detail  the  items  included 
under  the  general  rubric  of  objects  of  the  Higher 
Criticism.  These  are: 

I.  ORIGIN. — The  main  question  here  is  :  When, 
where,  and  by  whom  was  the  product  in  hand  com- 
posed ?  There  are  writings  very 

Objects 

loosely  associated  with  the  surround-     analyzed. 

...  .  ,  .    ,      .,  .     ,  i.  Origin. 

ings  within  which  they  came  into  ex- 
istence. They  lack  what  is  generally  called  local 
and  individual  color  or  specific  character.  They 
can  be  imagined  to  have  sprung  into  being  within 
one  of  many  ages  and  countries.  They  abound  in 
that  which  is  common  to  all  times  and  places  rather 
than  in  that  which  is  the  peculiar  feature  of  one. 
These,  it  would  be  natural  to  suppose,  could  be  used 
just  as  well  without  any  knowledge  of  the  circum- 
stances of  their  origin  as  on  the  basis  of  such 
knowledge.  But  even  in  these  cases,  as  soon  as 
information  even  of  the  most  vague  and  negative 
character  is  procured,  it  proves  of  great  value  in 
putting  their  contents  to  use.  The  single  question, 
e.g.,  ''Was  the  age  within  which  such  a  product 
came  to  light  one  of  great  literary  activity  or  the 
opposite  ?"  if  answered  correctly  and  definitely  with 
reference  to  the  most  vague  production,  would  give 
the  reader  a  brighter  conception  of  it  and  a  deeper 
insight  into  it.  How  much  our  idea  of  the  strength 


l6  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

or  weakness  of  a  writer,  and  consequently  of  his 
authority,  would  be  affected  by  one  or  another 
answer  to  the  following  question  :  Was  the  author 
independent  of  his  environment  ?  Did  he  act  as  a 
molding  influence  on  it,  or  was  he  a  mere  product 
of  it  ?  A  remark  may  sound  flat  and  unprofitable 
as  it  comes  from  a  well-read  man  in  a  civilized  land 
in  the  nineteenth  century  ;  but  it  would  be  con- 
sidered oracular  in  its  importance  if  known  to  have 
proceeded  from  some  member  of  a  savage  tribe,  or 
from  some  primitive  age.  But  what  is  thus  shown 
to  be  of  importance  in  examining  literary  docu- 
ments of  vague  and  historically  colorless  character 
is  doubly  important  in  the  case  of  those  of  marked 
features.  In  these  we  wish  to  know  not  only  how 
much  influence  the  environment  has  had  on  them, 
but  also  what  the  meaning  of  many  features  of  them 
may  be,  viewed  in  the  light  of  that  environment. 
In  other  words  the  time  and  place  within  which  any 
writing  is  produced  are  the  medium  through  which 
it  must  necessarily  pass.  It  is  important  to  know 
whether  the  medium  has  or  has  not  affected  it  ;  for, 
even  if  it  have  not,  the  knowledge  of  this  fact  must 
make  some  difference  in  using  it  ;  and  if  it  have,  it 
is  important  to  know  to  what  extent  and  how  it  has 
modified  it. 

Besides  the  environment  a  knowledge  of  the 
personality  of  the  author  is  of  extreme  importance. 
Personality  of  Everything  that  tends  to  explain  the 
the  author.  character  of  the  author  throws  light 
on  his  writings.  If  he  is  found  to  be  possessed_pf 
one  temperament  we  interpret  his  words  in  one  way, 
and  if  7>f  another  temperament  we  interpret  them  in 


THE    OBJECTS    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.          17 

another  way.  The  same  language  means  more  in 
the  mouth  of  one,  and  less  in  the  mouth  of  another. 
If  it  is  known  that  a  given  author  is  generally  hope- 
ful or  sanguine  in  his  views,  and  it  is  found  that  on 
a  given  situation  he  has  expressed  himself  despair- 
ingly, the  gravity  of  the  situation  becomes  a  matter 
beyond  doubt.  Or  let  us  suppose  that  we  are  peru- 
sing a  work  with  an  optimistic  tone  ;  if  we  were 
informed  that  the  author  was  temperamentally  or 
habitually  inclined  to  look  on  the  dark  aspects  of 
things,  we  would  naturally  infer  that  the  occasion 
of  hopefulness  must  have  been  irresistibly  strong  in 
the  things  of  which  he  writes,  in  order  to  pervade 
the  writing  of  a  man  of  such  temperament. 

The  personal  relation  of  the  author  to  the  sub- 
jects of  which  he  is  treating  is  another  point  on 
which  information  is  always  helpful.  If  the  sub- 
jects are  subjects  of  debate,  it  is  important  to  know 
on  which  side  the  author  stands.  Whether  he  is 
influenced  by  partizan  prejudice  or  not,  whether  he 
is  carried  away  by  personal  feelings  or  is  obliv- 
ious of  himself  ;  these  are  questions  that  must  be 
answered  before  the  reader  can  have  an  adequate 
conception  of  the  full  meaning  of  what  he  is  reading. 

Again,  when  an  author  speaks  with  positiveness, 
as  if  ex  cathedra,  on  any  given  subject,  it  is  natural 
to  ask,  What  is  his  title  to  the  place  of  Qualifications 
an  authoritative  teacher  ?  what  right  ofthe  author- 
has  he  to  speak  with  positiveness  ?  Has  he  acquired 
his  information  at  first  hand  ?  and  if  so,  what  are 
the  evidences  of  his  having  done  so  ?  Has  he  been 
trained  by  special  experiences  to  speak  as  one  who 
knows  whereof  he  affirms  ?  or  has  he  been  endowed 


18  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

by  nature  with  genius,  with  a  keen  observation  or 
accurate  intuition  ?  On  the  answers  to  these  ques- 
tions will  depend  in  a  large  measure,  if  not  alto- 
gether, the  attitude  of  mind  with  which  such  an 
author  is  listened  to.  According  as  he  proves  to 
have  or  not  to  have  the  requisite  qualifications,  men 
will  give  him  attention  either  as  docile  learners,  or 
as  courteous  listeners,  or  finally  as  suspicious  and 
watchful  critics. 

The  author's  profession  or  employment,  his  occu- 
pation with,  and  therefore  knowledge  of,  a  special 
occupation  of  dass  of  facts  naturally  throws  much 

the  author.  ijght    Qn  what    ng    says        A    great    djf. 

ference  must  exist,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
between  the  knowledge  and  the  opinions  of  an  expert 
on  the  one  side,  and  of  an  amateur  on  the  other,  in 
any  department.  The  medical  man's  utterances  on 
questions  of  medicine  carry  much  more  weight  than 
those  of  a  man  of  another  profession  ;  they  carry 
much  more  weight  than  the  same  man's  utterances 
on  other  than  medical  subjects.  It  is  of  importance, 
therefore,  to  know  whether  the  utterances  .we  deal 
with  are  those  of  one  whose  daily  life  has  qualified 
him  to  be  an  expert  on  the  subjects  of  which  he 
is  speaking.  The  attitude  of  mind  with  which  his 
words  are  listened  to  will  depend  on  the  knowledge 
that  he  is  an  expert  or  a  mere  amateur. 

But  the  bearing  of  all  such  information  is  not  as 
simple  as  it  may  at  first  appear.     Great  care  is  neces- 
sary  in  discriminating  in   each    indi- 

Double  bear-  r-       L  c        •          i       u 

ing  of  occupa-    vidual  case.     Such  professional  char- 
acter, when  established,  should  have  a 
twofold  effect  on  the  way  in  which  statements  are 


THE    OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.          19 

to  be  taken.  First,  as  to  statements  of  fact,  we 
expect  from  such  a  person  greater  fulness  and 
accuracy;  but  secondly,  as  to  statements  involving 
opinions  of  the  profession  or  employment,  we  are 
led  to  make  some  allowance  for  professional  enthusi- 
asm. If  an  author,  e.  g.,  be  a  priest,  all  he  may  say 
of  the  ritual  and  its  details  will  be  taken  with  more 
confidence  than  if  he  were  a  herdsman  ;  but  at  the 
same  time  his  estimate  of  the  importance  of  the 
details  might  be  exaggerated,  owing  to  the  very 
fact  of  his  being  a  priest,  and  unconsciously  magni- 
fying his  office.  In  such  a  case,  it  will  be  readily 
seen,  it  is  not  only  important  that  the  general  pro- 
fession and  character  of  the  author  should  be  known, 
but  also  his  individual  peculiarities  ;  even  to  the 
extent  of  enabling  the  critic  to  ascertain  how  far  he 
would  be  likely  to  be  influenced  by  professional 
pride  or  prejudice. 

Still  another  element  to  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion, before  the  critic  is  satisfied  on  the  question  of 
origin,  is  the  nature  of  the  source  Habits  of 
from  which  this  information  is  derived,  authors. 
The  works  of  many  writers  can  be  used  as  sources 
regarding  their  lives  and  times.  Josephus  gives 
us  his  own  Autobiography,  Augustine  details  many 
of  his  experiences  in  his  Confessions ;  others,  both 
ancient  and  modern,  let  their  private  lives  and 
the  history  of  their  times  enter  into  their  works. 
Others,  however,  are  more  sparing  in  their  allusions 
to  themselves.  Some,  as  already  intimated,  are 
totally  silent.  They  write  impersonally.  They 
let  others  make  claims  for  them.  These  claims 
must  be  sifted  and  tested. 


20  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

When  an  author  distinctly  reveals  himself  in  his 
work,  both  the  manner  and  the  spirit  in  which  he 
speaks  of  himself  contribute  in  making  an  estimate 
of  the  value  of  the  information  he  furnishes.  His 
whole  moral  character  is  involved  not  merely  in  the 
way  in  which  he  speaks  of  himself,  but  also  in  the  fact 
that  he  writes  under  his  own  name,  under  an  assumed 
name — either  real  or  imaginary — or,  lastly,  under  no 
name  whatever.  In  the  last  of  these  alternatives 
there  is  perhaps  not  any  necessary  moral  implication. 
Anonymous  The  reasons  that  may  lead  a  writer  to 
writings.  puj.  foj-th  his  WOrk  anonymously  may  be 

such  as  do  not  open  him  to  the  charge  of  moral  de- 
linquency. The  author  may  be  indifferent  to  the 
benefits  which  might  be  expected  to  inure  either  to 
himself  or  to  others,  from  attaching  his  name  to  his 
work.  He  may  be  ignorant  of  any  such  benefits. 
He  may  have  some  good  reason  of  a  local  and  tem- 
porary character  for  withholding  his  name  from  the 
public.  Or  having  attached  it  he  may  have  been 
deprived  of  the  credit  of  the  work  by  some  acci- 
dent. In  none  of  these  cases  would  his  personal 
integrity  and  trustworthiness  be  impaired  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  his  name  is  not  associated  with  his 
work. 

But  if  from  this  case  we  pass  to  the  other  alter- 
native :   viz.,   the   one   in  which   the   name   of  an 
author  is    given   to    the    writing,    it 

Of     writings 

falsely    as-    becomes   a  question    of    the   utmost 

cribed. 

importance  at  once  to  ascertain 
whether  the  name  is  correctly  given.  If  the  result 
of  the  inquiry  be  that  it  is,  then  again  the  moral 
integrity  of  the  writer  is  established  and  with  it,  to 


THE   OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.          21 

that  extent,  his  trustworthiness.  But  if  not,  then 
the  inquiry  must  be  pushed  further.  The  critic  must 
now  ask,  How  comes  it  about  that  the  writing  is 
ascribed  to  an  author  who  did  not  write  it  ? 

1.  One  answer  to  this  important  question  might 
be  that  this  is  done  in  consequence  of  confusion  or 
accident.     Of  the  products  of  antiquity       x   By    acci. 
this  is    not  unlikely  to   be  the   case     dent- 
often.     Methods  of  publishing  were  imperfect.     It 
is  well  known  that  copyists  often  took  liberties  with 
the  most  important  works;  they  appended  names  to 
works  anonymously  published;  and   these   names, 
once  attached  to  writings,  would  be  perpetuated  by 
passing  into  all  subsequent  copies.     At  other  times 
again  copyists  confused  the  name  of  the  real  author 
with  the  name  of  some  other,  and  substituted  that  of 
the  other;  and  this,  being  thus  associated  with  the 
work,  came  in  the  course  of  time  to  supplant  that  of 
the  real  author.     In  either  of  these  cases  no  one 
could  really  be  considered   morally  reprehensible, 
except  so  far  as  negligence  or  hastiness  in  reaching 
conclusions  is  morally  reprehensible.     For,  by  the 
very  supposition,  the  real  cause  of  the  ascription  of 
a  wrong  name  to  the  writing  is  the  mistake  of  the 
copyist;  /.  e.,  an  accidental  result,  and  not  the  inten- 
tion of  any  one  to  misrepresent. 

2.  But  a  second  answer  to  the  question  might  be 
that  the  real  author,  having  regard  more  to  the 
acceptance  of  his  work  than  a  desire      a    Intention- 
to  gain  credit  to  himself  for  its  pro-    ally- 
duction,  attached   to   it  the   name   of  some  other 
person  better  known  than  himself.     The  weight  of 
a  great  name  will  naturally  carry  a  book  into  the 


22  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

hands  of  many  readers  who  would  otherwise  not  be 
inclined  to  give  it  their  time  and  attention.  The 
weight  of  a  great  name  has  always  been  sought  after 
by  those  who  would  secure  important  ends.*  Let 
it  be  assumed  that  an  author  cared  more  to  have  his 
views  accepted  than  to  be  known  as  their  originator, 
and  it  naturally  follows  that  the  temptation  to  palm 
his  work  off  as  that  of  a  great  writer  must  be  met  by 
him.  In  such  a  case,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say 
the  work  is  essentially  a  forgery.  The  moral  impli- 
cations are  also  in  such  a  case  apparent. 

3.   But  there  might  be  a  third  answer  to  the  above 
question  before   the   critic,   viz.,   that   the   author 
3.  Pseudo-    hides  under  an  assumed   name;  and 
nyms>  this  simply  from  personal  predilection 

and  not  with  the  intention  of  deceiving,  even  in 
order  to  procure  a  wider  acceptance  for  his  views. 
How  frequently  this  is  the  case  in  modern  literature 
it  is  not  necessary  to  point  out.  Pseudonyms  and 
noms  deplume  have  come  to  be  used  very  extensively 
as  covers  for  real  authors'  names;  there  are  so  many 
of  them  in  fact  that  it  is  necessary  to  compile  diction- 
aries of  great  bulk  to  serve  as  guides  in  this  large 
and  growing  field.  Young  and  oversensitive  literary 
men  as  a  class  are  especially  apt  to  seek  conceal- 
ment behind  the  impersonality  of  an  assumed  name. 
But  a  pseudonym  is  really  such  only  as  it  is  clearly 
understood  to  be  a  pseudonym.  When  so  under- 
stood it  reflects  in  no  way  on  the  morality  of  the 
motives  of  the  author. 

*  The  principle  here  is  the  same  as  that  underlying  the  custom  in 
our  times  of  securing  an  introduction  by  some  eminent  man  to  the 
work  of  a  young  and  unknown  author. 


THE   OBJECTS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.         23 

Thus  far  the  question  of  authorship  has  been  con- 
sidered as  one  of  genuineness.  We  have  seen  that 
when  a  name  appears  attached  to  a 

Genuineness 

document  the  critic  asks  :  Is  the  work  and  Authen- 
really  the  production  of  the  man 
whose  name  it  bears  ?  Allied  to  this  is  the  further 
question  of  authenticity.  This  differs  from  the 
question  of  genuineness  not  so  much  in  degree  as  in 
kind.  Put  in  its  simplest  and  most  general  form  it 
is  :  Does  the  work  accurately  represent  the  author  ? 
It  can  occur  in  either  of  two  cases  : 

i.  When  there  are  various  copies,  recensions,  or 
editions.  One  of  these  probably  comes  nearer  ex- 
pressing the  ideal  of  the  author  than  First  form  Of 
any  other.  He  would,  or  perhaps  authenticity, 
did,  give  it  the  sanction  of  his  approval;  it  is  au- 
thentic or  authenticated  because  it  has  the  authority 
of  the  originator,  /.  e.,  the  only  person  who  can  give 
it  authority — the  author. 

Such  authority  is  more  frequently  found  in  con- 
nection with  the  field  of  the  Lower  Criticism.  Here 
the  question  often  is,  Did  the  author  write  this  or 
that  ?  Whenever  the  text  of  a  given  production  has 
been  so  far  purified  that  it  may  be  said  to  be  either 
strictly  or  for  practical  purposes  an  equivalent  to 
the  autographic  text,  it  is  then  either  strictly  or 
practically  authentic.  Whenever  a  recension  or 
edition  of  a  book,  or  copy  of  a  piece  of  art,  is  suffi- 
ciently accurate  to  represent  the  production  as  the 
author  would  have  it  or  did  put  it  forth,  it  is 
authentic.  It  is  plain  that  authenticity  and  genuine- 
ness are  terms  which  it  is  very  easy  to  confuse  with 
one  another.  In  fact  not  unfrequently  they  are 


24  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

used  interchangeably.  While  this  use  is  not  strictly 
correct,  there  is  a  region  in  which  investigations 
regarding  genuineness  and  authenticity  overlap,  or 
at  least,  touch  one  another.  This  is  the  case  when 
the  term  is  applied  in  the  broader  sense. 

2.  In  the  broader  sense  the  authenticity  of  a 
writing  is  the  authenticity  of  current  opinion 
second  form  regarding  it.  When,  for  instance,  an 
of  authenticity,  anonymous  work  is  tacitly  and  uni- 
versally ascribed  to  a  given  writer,  without  explicitly 
claiming  to  be  his  work  within  its  text,  or  in  any 
part  presumably  from  the  hand  of  the  author,  the 
question  may  be  asked:  Is  the  ascription  authentic  ? 
/.  e.y  Does  it  proceed  from  and  represent  the 
author  at  this  point  ?  Or  if  a  tradition,  either  uni- 
form or  varying,  has  represented  a  writing  as  the 
product  of  a  given  person,  the  question  maybe  put  : 
Is  the  tradition  authentic  ?  It  then  becomes  proper 
to  speak  of  the  investigation  as  the  investigation  of 
authenticity  and  not  of  genuineness.  But  it  is  an 
investigation  into  the  authenticity  of  a  tradition 
regarding  the  work,  not  of  the  work  itself. 

The  difference  may  be  illustrated  by  taking  two 
cases  from  the  history  of  criticism.     The  first  is  the 
illustrations:    familiar    controversy    regarding    the 
Isaiah.  book  of  Isaiah  as  found  in  the  Bible. 

The  first  thirty-nine  chapters  of  the  book  claim  to 
be  the  work  of  a  definite  person  described  as 
"Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  ...  in  the  days  of 
Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of 
Judah."  If  it  were  proved  that  these  chapters  were 
not  written  by  this  prophet,  the  genuineness  of  that 
part  of  the  book  would  be  disproved.  The  last  part 


THE   OBJECTS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.         25 

of  the  book,  however,  consisting  of  chapters  xl.  to 
Ixvi.,  although  always  found  together  with  these 
and  commonly  ascribed  to  the  same  prophet, 
nowhere  claims  to  have  been  uttered  by  Isaiah. 
If  it  were  now  proved  that  it  was  the  work  of  some 
other  individual  besides  the  Isaiah  specifically 
named  and  distinguished  in  Is.  i.  i :  the  authentic- 
ity of  the  tradition  ascribing  this  part  of  the  work 
to  Isaiah  would  be  disproved  but  not  its  genuine- 
ness. The  question  of  genuineness  does  not  rise 
until  a  claim  embedded  in  the  book  is  suspected  of 
being  unfounded. 

The  second  case  illustrating  the  difference 
between  genuineness  and  authenticity  is  the  case 
of  the  recently  edited  Testament  of  "Testament  of 
Abraham.  This  M.  R.  James,  the  Abraham." 
editor,  claims  is  identical  with  a  work  of  that  name 
known  in  ancient  times,  but  lost  sight  of  during  the 
period  that  has  elapsed  since.  Origen  for  example 
mentions  and  refers  (Thirty-fifth  Homily  on  Luke)  to 
an  apocryphal  writing  containing  an  account  of  the 
conflict  of  good  and  evil  angels  regarding  the  body 
of  Abraham;  the  title  of  a  similar  work  is  placed  by 
Nicephorus  in  a  list  of  apocryphal  books  such  as 
Enoch,  The  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  etc. 
But  while  James  claims  the  identity  of  the  work 
edited  by  himself  with  these,  all  scholars  are  not 
satisfied  that  the  identification  has  been  made  out. 
Evidently  an  investigation  of  the  question  is  in 
order,  and  the  investigation  that  would  either  prove 
or  disprove  the  position  of  James  must  be  one  in 
the  sphere  of  authenticity.  This  special  case  may 
also  serve  to  indicate  the  twofold  meaning  of  the 


26  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

term  authenticity  and  the  twofold  aspect  of  the 
question  involved.  The  critic  may  ask:  first  Is  the 
work  the  same  as  that  alluded  to  by  Origen  and 
'found  in  the  list  of  Nicephorus  ?  and  secondly,  Is  it 
an  authentic  copy  or  recension  of  that  work  ? 

It  will  be  seen  from  these  illustrations  that  the 
question  of  authenticity  does  not  involve  the  moral 
character  of  the  author's  intention,  whereas  that  of 
genuineness  may.  Lack  of  authenticity  may  arise 
by  accident,  or  by  a  mistake  of  some  other  person 
besides  the  author,  or  even  from  the  intention  of 
some  other  besides  the  author  to  deceive;  but  in  no 
case  is  the  author  responsible  for  the  confusion 
or  misunderstanding  that  may  result.  Lack  of 
genuineness,  unless  it  can  be  proved  to  be  the 
result  of  carelessness  or  innocent  neglect  on  the 
part  of  the  author,  involves  the  moral  character  of 
his  motives  and  vitiates  his  authority,  so  far  forth, 
on  moral  questions. 

But  besides   the   questions   of  authenticity  and 

genuineness  and  kindred  to  them,  in  examining  the 

origin  of  a  work  there  is  another  which 

Integrity.  .   .  •  '.-«• 

the  critic  must  ask;  this  refers  to  the 
integrity  or  unity  of  it.  This  again  may  assume  dif- 
ferent forms  and  require  different  treatment  accord- 
ing to  its  varying  phases.  But  its  general  nature  is 
that  of  an  inquiry  into  the  unity  or  multiplicity  of 
persons  involved  in  the  production  of  a  writing. 

i.  All  literary  productions  are  apt  to  be  tampered 
with  by  editors.     Even  in  modern  times,  notwith- 
standing    rigid      notions      prevailing 

How  impaired. 

regarding  literary  propriety  and  the 
rights  of  the  author  to  hold  his  writing  as  a  posses- 


THE   OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.         27 

sion  with  marketable  value,  it  is  not  infrequently 
the  case  that  writings  are  altered  by  editors  or 
revisers.  And  the  more  a  literary  production  is 
used,  the  greater  the  probability  of  its  being  cor- 
rupted in  the  process  of  reproduction.  Now  this 
corruption,  viewed  as  a  misrepresentation  of  the 
author,  is  investigated  under  the  question  of 
authenticity;  viewed  as  a  wrong  which  must  be  set 
right,  it  is  investigated  by  the  texual  or  Lower  Criti- 
cism. The  sole  object  of  the  textual  criticism  is  to 
determine  whether  the  text  of  a  writing  is  found  as 
the  author  first  put  it  forth,  or  has  t.  By  Editorial 
been  corrupted  either  intentionally  or  Revlslons- 
unintentionally;  and,  if  corrupted,  to  what  extent 
corrupted  and  how  it  may  be  purified.  But  corrup- 
tions may  enter  into  writings  in  several  forms. 
They  may  consist  in  the  omission  or  excision  of 
original  parts,  in  the  alteration  of  these,  or  in  the 
addition  of  new  elements.  In  the  first  two  forms 
they  are  manifestly  in  the  sphere  of  the  Lower  Criti- 
cism. They  affect  the  problems  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  only  indirectly.  In  the  form  of  additions, 
however,  they  may  be  legitimately  in  either  depart- 
ment. It  would  be  hard  to  draw  a  sharp  line 
between  the  two  kinds  of  criticism  here;  but,  if  one 
should  be  attempted,  it  must  be  upon  the  basis  of  the 
recognition  of  the  fact  that  both  branches  take  cog- 
nizance of  additions  to  writings,  but  that  they  differ 
in  their  point  of  view  and  in  their  methods  of  dealing 
with  these  additions.  The  Lower  Criticism  looks  at 
such  additions  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  text. 
They  are  corruptions,  which  it  attempts  to  detect  and 
expunge.  Hence  it  is  not  concerned  with  their  mag- 


28  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

nitude  or  gravity;  they  must  be  eliminated  in  any 
case.  They  may  be  simple  words  or  letters  or  whole 
paragraphs  or  chapters.  Of  the  latter  the  last  twelve 
verses  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  and  the  first  eleven  of 
the  eighth  of  John  are  clear  instances.  The  Lower 
Criticism  insists  that  they  shall  not  be  considered  a 
part  of  the  writing  of  the  books  in  which  they  occur. 
The  Higher  Criticism  looks  at  additions  from  the 
point  of  view  of  their 'origin.  Hence,  if  they  are 
small  and  insignificant  it  may  ignore  them,  as  prac- 
tically leaving  the  question  of  authorship  of  the 
whole  work  unaffected.  The  Lower  Criticism  seeks 
to  find  these  additions  and  to  eliminate  them  mainly 
by  means  of  its  own  peculiar  methods;  /'.  e.,  the 
collation  of  manuscript  readings,  citations,  etc. 
The  Higher  Criticism  attempts  the  same  task  by 
means  of  a  comparison  of  internal  characteristics  of 
style  and  thought.  Its  problem  is  to  answer  the 
question :  Is  there  more  than  one  author  discern- 
ible in  the  writing  or  not  ?  and  if  that  question 
should  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  How  many 
authors,  and  who  were  they  ?  This  constitutes  the 
investigation  of  integrity  and  comes  within  the 
province  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

2.  Thus  far  only  one  cause  of  the  impairment  of 
integrity  has  been  taken  into  consideration.     That 
a.  Accident-     was    editorial    addition.      There    are 
ally'  others.     The  second  to  be  named  is 

the  accidental  union  of  two  or  more  writings  origi- 
nally put  forth  as  distinct  and  separate.  This  may 
happen  in  one  of  several  conceivable  ways.  For 
the  sake  of  illustration  let  us  imagine  a  case  based 
on  usages  of  modern  times.  It  is  quite  common  for 


THE    OBJECTS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM..        29 

persons  engaged  in  some  special  form  of  literary 
work  to  collect  minor  contributions  to  the  subject 
they  are  studying.  These,  generally  in  the  form  of 
pamphlets  or  brochures,  are  often  bound  together 
for  the  sake  of  convenience  or  economy.  Each 
volume  of  such  pamphlets  bound  together  is  often 
named  after  the  first,  most  extensive,  and  perhaps 
most  important  of  the  pamphlets  contained  in  it. 
Other  brochures  maybe  included  in  the  title,  but  if 
the  economy  of  space  and  the  neatness  aimed  at  in 
such  matters  rule  otherwise,  the  whole  volume  is 
likely  to  have  the  title  of  the  first  number  in  it,  with 
an  "  etc."  appended,  to  indicate  that  it  was  given 
only  in  a  general  way.  If  in  a  case  of  this  very 
common  sort  there  should  be  bound  together  two 
productions,  one  with  the  author's  name  attached 
and  a  second  anonymous,  and  if  in  the  course  of 
time,  after  the  pamphlets  have  passed  out  of  the 
attention  of  the  public,  a  revival  of  interest  in  the 
subject  should  lead  some  enterprising  publisher  to 
reprint  them,  it  would  certainly  be  possible  that  he 
should  put  them  together  as  the  work  on  the  same 
subject  of  the  same  author.  But  in  such  case  there 
would  no  doubt  be  evidences  of  the  lack  of  integrity, 
raising  a  question  on  this  point  for  criticism  to 
solve.  But  what  is  supposed  as  possible  under 
modern  conditions,  when  means  for  preserving  the 
separateness  of  distinct  productions  are  so  abun- 
dant, it  is  hardly  possible  to  doubt  did  happen 
under  the  more  primitive  and  pliable  Ancient  modes 
conditions  of  antiquity.  Two  of  these  of  book-making, 
conditions  especially  bearing  on  this  subject  are 
worthy  of  mention;  first,  the  small  number  of 


3O  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

copies  made  of  any  single  book.  Modern  facilities 
for  the  multiplication  of  copies  of  literary  produc- 
tions make  it  possible  for  us  to  put  forth  editions 
numbering  thousands  ;  but  where  each  copy  was 
made  by  hand  separately,  editions  often  were  neces- 
sarily much  more  limited.  Secondly,  the  scarcity 
and  expensiveness  of  materials  made  it  necessary  to 
utilize  the  same  parchment  for  more  than  one  book. 
It  is  very  well  known  that  so  great  was  the  desire 
to  economize  parchment  that  manuscripts  of  old 
books  were  often  washed  in  order  that  new  ones 
might  be  written  on  the  same  parchment.  The 
same  desire  led  to  the  inclusion  of  two  or  more 
documents  on  one  roll.*  It  was  certainly  possible 
under  such  circumstances  to  run  together  different 
works  into  one.  But  this  possibility  once  granted, 
it  becomes  a  part  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to  inquire, 
whenever  suspicions  arise  of  such  having  been  the 
case,  whether  they  are  well  founded,  and  to  unravel 
and  separate  works  belonging  to  different  authors. 

3.   Compilation.     The  combination  of  two  or  more 

documents  in  one  may  also  be  made  intentionally 

3.    compiia-     by  a  compiler  or  editor.     The  simplest 

tion>  form  of  compilation  is    the  adopting 

into  one's  work  or  incorporating  of  passages  from 

*  Instances  of  such  confusion  of  authorship  are  supposed  to 
exist  in  great  abundance  in  ancient  documents.  The  well-known 
difficulty  in  Mat.  xxvii  :  9,  is  explained  by  many  on  the  assumption 
that  the  books  of  Jeremiah  and  Zechariah  were  commonly  written 
on  the  same  roll  and  spoken  of  together  as  the  "  Prophet  Jere- 
miah," at  least  locally  by  thfcse  with  whom  the  apostle  Matthew 
was  associated,  and  that  in  ascribing  an  utterance  of  Zechariah's  to 
Jeremiah  he  was  not  in  error,  but  used  the  common  designation 
of  the  book  from  which  he  quoted. 


THE    OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.          31 

other  works.  An  author,  undertaking  to  write  on  a 
given  subject,  finds  material  in  the  writings  of  others, 
which  expresses  what  he  is  aiming  to  put  forth. 
He  takes  it  into. his  own  work,  with  more  or  less 
change,  in  order  to  adapt  it  to  his  purposes.  If  the 
change  be  considerable,  if  it  amount,  for  instance, 
to  a  complete  transformation  and  assimilation,  it 
may  pass  as  properly  his  own.  If  the  change  is 
slight  or  none  at  all,  and  he  fail  to  give  credit  to 
the  source  from  which  he  has  derived  his  material, 
the  impression  will  go  forth  that  the  work  is  entirely 
his  own,  but  to  the  critic  the  problem  of  the  integrity 
of  the  writing  will  naturally  occur. 

But  the  process  of  compilation  may  be  resorted 
to  for  the  purpose  of  harmonizing  or  reducing  to 
simplicity  an  apparently  multiple  mass  Kinds  of  com- 
of  literature  bearing  on  any  given  Pllatlon- 
subject.  This  is  generally  done  after  a  period  of 
active  and  original  thought,  and  during  a  period  of 
study  and  reproduction  of  the  thoughts  of  the  pre- 
ceding time.  Instances  of  such  compilation  are  the 
reduction  of  the  Gospel  history  into  one  continuous 
narrative  of  the  life  of  Christ  by  Tatian  in  his  well 
known  Diatessaron;  the  Historia  Tripartita  of  Cassio- 
dorus,  or  the  unification  of  the  histories  of  Socrates, 
Sozomen,  and  Theodoret,  and  the  numerous  Catena 
of  exegetes  and  the  Sentences  of  the  theologians  of 
the  Middle  Ages. 

These  compilations  may  be  made  with  more  or 
less  editorial  work  on  the  part  of  the  compiler.  A 
compiler  may  so  far  transform  and  assimilate  the 
different  materials  he  has  brought  together  that 
he  may  be  entitled  to  be  considered  practically  the 


32  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

author  of  the  new  production.  On  the  other  hand 
he  may  throw  them  into  one  with  very  little  work 
on  his  part;  with  very  little  effort  even  to  smooth 
over  the  abruptness  of  passing  from  one  of  his 
sources  to  another,  by  modifying  the  closing  portion 
of  the  first  or  the  opening  portion  of  the  second 
part,  or  by  inserting  a  connecting  sentence  or  para- 
graph. In  such  a  case  it  is  usual  to  call  the  compiler 
a  redactor. 

A  compilation  may  be  made  by  the  use  of  sources 
coordinately  from  the  compiler's  point  of  view 
according  to  a  principle  which  suits  his  purpose,  or 
it  may  be  made  on  the  basis  of  one  source  used  as 
primary  and  others  as  auxiliary  or  supplementary 
to  that.  The  redactor  may  find  one  source  which 
furnishes  him  with  his  groundwork;  and  using  this 
as  a  main  source,  he  may  insert  into  it  from  other 
sources  sections  that  add  to  the  fulness  or  com- 
pleteness of  the  account.  Or  he  may  find  two  or 
more  sources  which  bear  to  one  another  the  relation 
of  parallels  and  fuse  these  into  one.  Or  he  may 
resort  to  a  large  number  of  sources  and  articulate 
them  into  one  another  and  thus  work  out  a  mosaic. 
In  all  these  cases  it  is  important  to  know  the  exact 
course  taken  by  him  in  order  to  be  able  to  use  his 
work  rightly.* 

*  The  investigation  of  this  single  question  of  integrity  con- 
stitutes that  large  and  important  section  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
known  as  analysis.  Emphasis  has  been  laid  on  this  section  to 
such  an  extent  that  the  very  name  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to 
many  suggests  this  simple  analytic  process.  It  is  a  favorite  depart- 
ment with  many  critics,  and  has  been  so  enthusiastically  worked, 
that  the  minds  of  even  some  experts  have  been  led  to  see  in  it  the 
almost  exclusive  field  of  criticism.  Thus  Professor  G.  F.  Moore  of 


THE    OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.          33 

To  sum  up,  the  questions  which  may  be  asked, 
and  which  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  ask  and 
answer  with  reference  to  the  origin 

....  ,  „,  Summary    of 

of  literary    productions,  are:  i.    The    questions      of 

question  of  authorship,  which  may  be 

put    simply  and  generally :    Who    is   the   author  ? 

2.  The  question  of  genuineness:  or,  Is  the  author 
whose  work  the  writing  claims  to  be  the  real  author  ? 

3.  The  question  of  authenticity:    or,  Is   it  a  true 
and  accurate  representation  of  the  author  ?    4.  The 
question  of  integrity:    or,   Is  the  whole  work  the 
production    of   one    author's    activity  ?     Is    it    an 
original  work  or  a  compilation  ?     Is  it  derived  from 
discoverable   sources,  and   what  are   its    sources? 
Accessory  to  these  questions,  and  involved  in  them 
to  such  an  extent  as  not  to  require  separate  con- 
sideration here,  are  the  further  questions  of  5.  The 
time  of  origin,  and  6.  The  place  of  the  same. 

Every  effort  to  answer  these  questions  from  data 
given  within  any  writing,  whether  it  be  a  book  of 
the  Bible,  a  Vedic  song,  or  a  Homeric  poem,  is  a 
piece  of  work  in  the  domain  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

II.  LITERARY  FORM. — The  second  of  the  objects 
aimed  at  by  the  Higher  Criticism  is  the  determina- 
tion of  the  precise  literary  form  of  a 

,.  II.  Form. 

literary  production.     To  any  one  who 

is  acquainted  only  with  modern  literary  methods 

Andover  Theological  Seminary,  in  the  Introduction  to  Bacon's 
Genesis  of  Genesis  :  ' '  With  these  observations  [certain  observa- 
tions of  Aben  Ezra's  regarding  post-Mosaic  material  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, which  indicate  composite  authorship]  criticism  had  made  a 
beginning,"  ignoring  all  critical  work  before  the  investigation  of 
the  question  of  integrity  was  undertaken. 


34  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

this  would  appear  to  be  a  work  of  supererogation. 
Works  of  literature  in  modern  times  are  so  described 
and  labeled  in  their  very  titles  that  it  is  impossible 
to  mistake  what  their  authors  intended  them  to  be. 
The  class  to  which  they  belong  is  often  given  with 
the  title.  One  does  not  need  to  enter  upon  an 
investigation  to  ascertain  that  one  of  Alphonse 
Daudet's  popular  stories  is  a  novel.  He  is  told  that 
it  is,  on  the  title-page.  One  need  not  be  told  that 
Tennyson's  In  Memoriam  is  a  poem  ;  he  sees  it  in 
the  arrangement  of  the  lines. 

But  these  modes  of  publishing  books  are  part  of 
the  system  of  modern  civilization.     In  ancient  times 
Not   always     tne  reader  of  a  book  was  left  to  his  own 
apparent.  resources  to  judge  of  the  form  of  liter- 

ary productions.  Poetry  and  prose  were  written 
alike  in  consecutive  manuscript.  Standards  for  dis- 
tinguishing between  different  species  of  literature 
were  neither  as  sharp  nor  as  commonly  familiar. 
Not  that  this  condition  of  things  occasioned  any 
difficulty  to  those  who  were  accustomed  to  it,  but 
simply  that  the  matter  was  left  to  them  to  ascertain 
instead  of  being,  as  in  modern  days,  decided  and 
simply  announced  by  the  author  and  publisher. 
Sometimes  indeed  a  preface  by  the  author  would 
indicate  to  the  reader  whether  the  document  he 
was  about  to  peruse  was  a  parable  or  an  allegory, 
a  historic  narrative  or  a  collection  of  lyrics  or 
proverbs.  But  much  oftener  the  question  did  not 
even  seem  to  occur  to  the  writer  whether  it  were 
proper  or  useful  to  say  anything  as  to  the  kind 
of  literature  he  was  putting  forth.  Hence  how- 
ever easy  or  hard  it  may  have  been  for  the  im- 


THE   OBJECTS  OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.         35 

mediate  circle  of  readers  of  an  ancient  writing 
to  discern  its  class,  it  is  a  problem  for  the  critic 
to  solve  under  the  very  different  conditions  of 
the  modern  age.  And  it  is  a  problem  which  often- 
times requires  considerable  labor  and  delicate  in- 
vestigation, careful  analysis  and  comparison  of 
data. 

It  is  also  extremely  probable,  if  not  absolutely 
certain,  that  forms  of  literature  used  at  other  times 
may  have  become  obsolete  in  our  days, 

•>  J    >  Forms    have 

just  as  it  is  certain,  on  the  other  hand,  changed, 
that  forms  utterly  unknown  formerly  have  come 
into  use  in  modern  times.  The  history  of  literature 
is  not  an  exception  to  the  law  of  development, 
which  has  so  much  diversified  and  made  more  com- 
plex every  other  sphere  of  activity  and  brought  to 
light  a  large  number  of  forms,  while  at  the  same 
time  it  has  caused  to  fall  into  disuse  many  of  the 
cruder  and  more  elementary  ones. 

To  take  a  concrete  and  familiar  illustration  :  the 
Song  of  Songs  or  Song  of  Solomon  nowhere  ex- 
pressly claims  to  be  a  narrative  of 

r  T.L      i-ii  ^.L         •    j.-  Ai  Illustration. 

facts.  Its  title  rather  intimates  that 
it  is  a  work  of  the  imagination.  It  has  very  often 
been  spoken  of  as  a  drama.  In  many  essential 
particulars  it  corresponds  with  the  species  of  literary 
production  known  under  that  name.  But,  if  we  are 
to  judge  from  the  differences  in  the  analyses  made 
by  different  scholars,  it  seems  to  be  so  constructed 
as  to  baffle  analysis  as  a  drama.  It  differs  in  many 
respects  from  a  drama  as  conceived  in  modern 
times.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  it  constitutes  a  dis- 
tinct form  of  literature,  with  laws  of  composition 


36  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

altogether  different   from  any  now  known  to  the 
literary  critic.* 

III.  VALUE. — The  third  object  aimed  at  by  the 

Higher  Criticism  is  to  ascertain  the  value  of  literary 

productions.     Value  is  a  relative  term. 

III.     Value:      ,.,...  .    „        .  .      . 

Adaptation  to  This  is  especially  the  case  when  it  is 
applied  to  literary  productions.  A 
writing  has  value  as  it  fulfils  the  purpose  for  which 
all  productions  of  its  class  are  put  forth.  The 
value  of  a  work  in  the  department  of  history  con- 
sists in  its  giving  an  abundance  of  historical  infor- 
mation, and  that  accurately  or  faithfully  to  the  facts. 
It  is  of  the  greatest  value  when  it  furnishes  the 
fullest  information  and  is  absolutely  trustworthy  in 
its  every  statement  of  fact;  or,  in  other  words,  when 
it  is  absolutely  without  error.  By  as  much  as  it  de- 
parts from  this  absolute  standard  it  loses  value  as 
history.  It  does  not,  however,  necessarily  lose  value 
in  other  respects,  if  it  happen  to  have  any  other  value. 
It  becomes  altogether  valueless  as  history  when  it  is 
found  that  it  does  not  furnish  facts,  or  that  it  "does 
not  give  them  credibly.  From  this  statement  it 
wilTat  once  appear  how  intimately  this  question  of 
the  value  of  a  literary  production  is  connected  with 
the  previous  questions  of  its  origin  and  literary 
form,  especially  the  latter. 

Probably  very  few  literary  productions  have  been 
put  forth  simply  and  purely  in  one  species  of  litera- 

Aim  not  ai-  ture-  *n  ^e  vast  majority  of  cases, 
ways  single.  besides  the  apparent  object  and  class 
of  a  writing,  there  is  a  more  remote  or  ultimate  aim 

*  Cf.  McDonald  on  "  The  Drama  in  Semitic  Literature,"  in  the 
Biblical  World,  January,  1895. 


THE    OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.          37 

in  view  in  its  production.  A  work  of  fiction,  e.g., 
may  be  put  forth  as  a  work  of  fiction  pure  and 
simple;  or  it  may  be  put  forth  as  a  work  of  fiction 
with  the  ulterior  object  of  cultivating  art;  or  with 
the  other  ulterior  object  of  imparting  historic  in- 
formation; or,  still  further,  with  the  ulterior  object 
of  producing  a  moral  impression.  Evidently  the 
critic  must  distinguish  between  the  novel  which  is 
put  forth  as  a  novel  only  and  the  novel  which  is 
published  with  the  aim  of  producing  an  artistic  or  a 
moral  or  other  impression. 

The  general  value  of  a  literary  production  then 
must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  its  special 
value.  The  general  value  of  a  book  General  and 
may  be  defined  as  that  which  consti-  special  value- 
tutes  its  usefulness  for  all  ordinary  purposes  served 
by  all  books;  its  special  value  is  that  which  consti- 
tutes its  usefulness  as  a  book  of  a  particular  class 
with  a  specific  object  to  be  attained  by  productions 
of  that  class. 

History  has  been  cited  as  an  illustration,  and  the 
value  of  historical  writings  has  been  found  to  con- 
sist in  their  fulness  and  credibility.  value  of  his- 
This  is  true  of  historical  writings  pure  tonc  wntines. 
and  simple.  It  often  happens  that  a  historical 
narrative  is  given  not  for  the  purposes  of  history  as 
a  science,  but -for  something  ulterior,  such  as  the 
philosophical  or  moral  value  of  the  narrative.  In 
such  a  case  it  is  evident  that  the  value  of  the  writ- 
ing does  not  depend  so  much  on  the  fulness  and 
credibility  of  its  historical  material  as  on  the  selec- 
tion and  coordination  of  the  historical  facts  accord- 
ing to  their  importance  relatively  to  the  special 


38  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

object  in  view.  Fulness  and  precision  in  details 
then  are  not  indispensable.  Inaccuracy  is  not  in- 
compatible with  the  greatest  value.  In  fact  a 
proper  economy  of  style  will  require  that  too  great 
fulness,  and  a  precision  such  as  can  only  be  properly 
used  by  a  very  few  technical  scholars,  be  avoided  as 
cumbersome.  Similarly,  when  the  primary  object  of 
a  writing  is  to  convey  scientific  knowledge,  its  value 
will  be  found  in  its  absolute  accord  with  nature;  its 
representing  the  facts  of  nature  with  unwavering 
fidelity.  If  an  author,  however,  undertakes  to 
enlighten  the  minds  of  a  popular  audience  on 
science;  if  he  should  attempt  to  express  himself  in 
the  strictest  scientific  language,  with  a  view  to 
being  faithful  to  the  facts  of  nature,  he  might 
render  his  production  useless,  /.  e.,  he  might  take 
away  from  its  value  by  such  an  effort.  Conse- 
quently, the  greatest  value  would  be  secured  for  his 
production  if  he  should  depart  from  the  strict 
standard  of  the  pure  scientist  and  use  loose  or 
figurative  language.  But  this  might  not  be  as 
minutely  faithful  to  the  facts  of  nature.  He  will 
seek  approximate  and  exact  accuracy.  So  again,  if 
a  historian  has  occasion  to  introduce  scientific  facts 
into  his  work,  he  may  depart  from  the  pure  scien- 
tific modes  of  representing  these  facts  without 
thereby  impairing  the  value  of  his  historical  work, 
or  the  general  value  of  it.  In  a  work  on  ethics  or 
philosophy  the  greatest  value  is  attained  when  the 
conviction  is  produced  that  the  views  put  forth  are 
Value  of  re-  true5  when  they  bind  the  reason  and  the 
Ugious  writings,  conscience.  In  art  the  highest  value 
is  reached  when  the  taste  or  aesthetic  faculty  is 


THE   OBJECTS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.         39 

satisfied  and  developed,  /.  e.,  led  to  a  stage  of  growth 
whence  it  can  appreciate,  approve,  and  enjoy  art 
forms  of  a  purer  and  higher  type.  For  this  reason 
a  piece  of  belletristics  may  be  utterly  valueless  as 
history  or  as  science,  but  excellent  as  a  vehicle  of 
moral  ideas  or  aesthetic  cultivation.  It  belongs  to 
criticism  to  discriminate  the  specific  value  of  each 
product  and  pronounce  on  the  question  of  its  worth 
as  history,  science,  philosophy,  ethics,  politics, 
belles-lettres,  or  whatever  else  it  may  appear  to  be 
on  close  examination. 

To  these  general  principles  it  is  necessary  to  add 
some  specific  considerations  regarding  the  standards 
by  which  the  value  of  the  books  of  Application  to 
the  Bible  is  to  be  measured.  The  the  Bible- 
Bible,  of  course,  is  a  book  of  religion  in  general. 
Its  ultimate  object  is  to  bring  men  alienated  from 
God,  their  Maker  and  heavenly  Father,  back  to 
Him.  Its  highest  value  will  depend  on  its  accom- 
plishing this  end.  But,  in  aiming  at  this  end,  the 
Bible  is  found  to  make  use  of  several  species  of 
literature;  as  for  example  history,  prophecy,  poetry, 
epistle,  discourse,  etc.  In  treating  of  the  question 
of  the  special  value  of  any  book  it  will  be  important 
to  determine  its  worth  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  standards  applied  to  the  class  of  literature  of 
which  it  is  a  part.  The  history  of  the  Bible  is  thus 
history  not  pure  and  simple,  written  for  the  sake  of 
imparting  historical  information,  but  history  for  the 
sake  of  producing  a  religious  impression,  with  a 
view  ultimately  of  changing  men's  attitude  toward 
God  and  molding  their  conduct  among  themselves. 
As  such,  the  history  contained  in  the  Bible  must  be 


40  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

measured  by  standards  of  credibility  less  rigid  than 
those  applied  to  purely  historical  works.  Occa- 
sional inaccuracies  in  it  must  not  be  esteemed 
blemishes  or  counted  errors.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  inasmuch  as  the  impression  which  the  state- 
ments of  the  Bible  are  intended  to  make  is  to  be 
made  through  trustworthy  ideas,  so  far  as  the 
validity  of  those  ideas  depends  on  the  truthfulness 
of  the  history  on  which  they  are  based,  that  history 
must  be  substantially  credible.  Thoughts  built 
on  facts,  and  deducible  from  facts,  necessarily 
depend  on  those  facts  and  their  reality  for  their 
value.  The  religious  value  of  thoughts  purporting 
to  be  derived  from  actual  facts  is  impaired  if  it  be 
discovered  that  the  facts  themselves  are  not  true. 
This  is  not  true,  of  course,  of  thoughts,  which  have 
no  such  connection  with  or  are  dependent  on  facts. 
Thoughts  may  be  illustrated  and  enforced  by  fig- 
ments of  the  imagination,  and  to  use  creations  of 
the  imagination  for  this  purpose  is  legitimate;  but 
they  must  be  understood  to  be  figments  and  not 
facts.  If  an  appeal  be  made  in  behalf  of  a  certain 
line  of  action  based  on  a  statement  that  certain 
facts  have  taken  place,  as  soon  as  it  is  perceived 
that  the  statement  was  not  true  the  force  of  the 
appeal  is  lost.  Conduct,  so  far  as  it  depends  on 
history,  requires  a  correct  presentation  of  that 
history.  But  the  correctness  of  presentation 
needed  under  such  circumstances  .need  not  extend 
to  the  minutest  details.  It  is  enough  if  it  be  sub- 
stantial; it  is  not  enough  if  it  fail  in  its  chief  cardi- 
nal points.  This  is  the  argument  of  the  Apostle 
Paul  in  i  Cor.  xv.,  with  reference  to  the  resurrection 


THE    OBJECTS    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.          4! 

of  Jesus  Christ.  "If  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is 
our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  vain."  If  the 
preaching  of  the  historic  fact  that  Christ  was  risen 
was  to  serve  as  a  basis  of  faith,  it  must  be  true 
preaching;  it  must  state  a  truth. 

To  sum  up  this  principle  makes  it  necessary  to 
ascertain  in  each  case  the  aim  of  a  historical  state- 
ment, before  we  can  pronounce  on  its 

Summary. 

value  as  tested  by  standards  of  history. 
If  history  be  given  for  the  sake  of  illustration ;  if  the 
purpose  is  not  to  call  for  a  course  of  action  because 
the  facts  narrated  have  taken  place,  but  to  furnish 
a  distinct  framework  for  the  abstract  principles  to 
be  taught;  if  the  history  might  have  been  given 
hypothetically,  or  as  a  parable,  the  critic  will  not 
pronounce  it  valueless  because  he  has  found  inac- 
curacies or  lack  of  fulness  in  it.  If  it  is  given  as  a 
ground  of  action,  he  will  insist  on  correctness  in  the 
essential  features  of  the  account.  If  it  is  given  as 
history  for  the  sake  of  its  historic  interest  pure  and 
simple,  he  will  be  more  rigid  and  require  precision 
in  details  as  well  as  in  the  chief  elements  of  the 
history. 

History  as  a  form  of  literature  may  serve  as  a 
specimen  of  all  literary  forms,  so  far  as  the  treat- 
ment of  the  question  of  value  is  concerned.  On  the 
same  principles  that  have  been  illustrated  in  speak- 
ing of  history,  the  critic  should  carefully  distinguish 
between  the  primary  and  accessory  aims  of  other 
kinds  of  writing,  and  pronounce  on  their  value  rela- 
tively to  these  aims. 

From  what  has  thus  far  been  ascertained  of  the 
objects  sought  to  be  attained  by  the  Higher  Criti- 


42  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

cism  it  must  be  very  plain  that  these  objects  are 
legitimate  and  proper,  and  that  it  is  extremely  im- 
portant to  reach   definite   results  re- 

These    ques- 
tions     impor-    gardmg  them.     Can  we  now  go  a  step 

further,  and  say  that,  before  any  use  can 
be  made  of  any  literary  productions,  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  obtain  definite  answers  to  these  ques- 
tions ?  This  question  seems  hardly  worth  asking; 

But  not  indis-  an<^  yet>  w^^  re^rence  to  the  books 
pensabie.  of  the  Bible,  the   importance   of  the 

knowledge  secured  by  the  Higher  Criticism  has 
been  not  infrequently  exaggerated  into  an  absolute 
necessity,  as  if  no  proper  use  of  them  could  be 
made  without  it.  This  position  is  neither  logical 
nor  historical.  It  is  not  historical,  because  it 
ignores  the  history  of  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the 
past.  Without  this  critical  information  the  Bible 
has  proved  from  the  beginning,  and  throughout  the 
ages,  not  merely  a  source  of  comfort,  but  a  means 
of  building  character.  And  the  type  of  character 
built  without  this  knowledge  has  been  and  is,  so  far 
as  it  is  being  produced  at  the  present  day,  of  as 
good  quality  as  the  character  that  is  likely  to  be 
built  by  a  study  of  the  Bible  in  the  light  of  critical 
investigation.  To  say,  therefore,  that  this  light  is 
absolutely  necessary  is  to  belie  the  facts  of  history 
and  experience.  The  facts  prove  in  this  case  that 
the  Bible  is  a  popular  book  and  is  clear  in  its  main 
contents  to  every  one  that  may  make  use  of  it. 
There  are  some  things  that  it  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  know  in  order  to  use  it  aright;  but  these 
are  not  the  facts  brought  to  light  by  the  Higher 
Criticism.  It  is  true  also  that  there  are  parts  of  it 


THE   OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.         43 

which  may  be  and  are  misunderstood  without  this 
light;  but,  upon  the  whole,  the  harm  done  by  such 
misunderstanding  is  of  a  negative  rather  than  of 
a  positive  kind.  It  consists  in  the  loss  of  valuable 
information,  rather  than  in  imbibing  injurious 
thoughts  or  standards;  in  being  deprived  of  the 
inspiration  and  suggestiveness  that  come  from  a 
true  and  full  knowledge,  rather  than  in  being 
dragged  down  morally  by  wrong  moral  ideals  or 
standards  that  may  be  built  on  the  absence  of  that 
light. 

However  important  some  of  these  questions  may 
be,  therefore,  they  are  not  such  as  to  need  solution 
as  a  condition  sine  qua  non  of  the  critical 
right  use  of  the  Bible.  They  touch  £°wsh:y pw0°tr £ 
not  its  vital  and  essential  nature,  but  eses< 
its  details.  This  is  not,  of  course,  equivalent  to 
denying  that  some  theory  of  the  nature  and  origin 
of  the  Bible  must  underlie  all  use  of  it.  Nor  is  it 
equivalent  to  denying  that  any  theory  serving  as  a 
basis  must  be  true  or  untrue,  right  or  wrong.  But 
it  is  denying  that  any  theory  is  so  far  true  and 
right  as  to  make  it,  and  it  only,  the  theory  upon 
which  the  Bible  must  be  used.  The  theories  which 
have  come  into  vogue  have  varied  so  much,  and 
changed  so  rapidly,  that  for  any  of  them  to  claim 
this  exclusive  right  to  furnish  the  basis  of  use 
is  premature  and  arrogant.  They  are  all,  at  the 
best,  but  working  hypotheses  of  varying  plausi- 
bility. Some  minds  feel  the  force  of  the  reasons 
for  one  more  strongly  than  the  force  of  the  reasons 
for  any  other,  and  proceed  to  accept  that  as  their 
starting-point  in  using  the  Bible.  To  many,  for 


44  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

instance,  the  views  concerning  the  Bible  commonly 
called  "traditional"  constitute  the  most  reason- 
able working  hypothesis  for  the  proper  use  of  the 
book.  These  views  were  held  by  scholars  in  past 
generations;  their  being  called  "traditional"  is 
neither  for  nor  against  their  validity;  they  cer- 
tainly constitute  a  good  working  hypothesis.  Until 
something  more  satisfactory  is  demonstrated  to  be 
true  they  are  entitled  to  hold  a  place  among  the 
possible  theories.  The  situation  therefore  which  is 
assumed  by  some  of  the  more  enthusiastic  sup- 
porters of  recent  views  held  in  the  name  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  is  not  real,  in  that  it  presupposes 
the  worthlessness  of  traditional  theories;  or 
rather  recognizes  the  value  of  only  such  views  as 
are  based  on  modern  critical  research.  Thus 
Cheyne  *  says  :  "I  would  rather  that  my  readers 
adopted  one  or  the  other  [of  the  views  of  the 
historic  situation  of  a  Psalm  both  of  which  he 
rejects  himself]  than  that  they  reject  all  attempts 
to  find  historical  situations  for  the  sacred  lyrics." 
In  a  remark  like  this  either  the  so-called  "tra- 
ditional "  view  of  the  historical  situation  in  this 
Psalm  is  among  the  legitimate  ones,  or  it  is  not.  If 
it  is,  then  the  remark  loses  its  force;  because  every 
one  who  uses  the  Psalm,  depending  on  the  traditional 
view  of  the  situation,  has  a  "historical  situation" 
for  it.  But  if  the  "traditional  view"  of  this  his- 
torical situation  is  not  worthy  to  be  classified 
among  "attempts  to  find  historical  situations,"  and 
the  only  ones  worthy  of  the  name  are  those  which 
have  been  conjecturally  put  forth  by  expert  critics 

Jeremiah,  p.  105. 


THE   OBJECTS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.         45 

in  recent  years,  then  it  exaggerates  the  importance 
of  a  solution  of  the  critical  questions  and  is  to  be 
rejected. 

Thus  also  we  must  reject  the  views  on  this  sub- 
ject of  those  who  like  Professor  Briggs  hold  to  the 
giving  to  the  solution  of  these  ques-  unessential  to 
tions  a  fundamental  place  in  religious  «Ugious  life, 
life  and  experience.  This  eminent  scholar  says:* 
"You  may  be  willing  to  take  it  [The  Bible]  on  the 
authority  of  your  pastor,  or  your  parents,  or  your 
friends,  or  the  Christian  Church.  But  there  are 
multitudes  who  cannot  do  this.  They  want  to  know 
by  what  authority  the  Church  claims  that  the  Bible 
is  the  Word  of  God.  The  Church  has  committed 
so  many  sins  against  truth  and  fact  that  it  is  neces- 
sary for  us  to  know  whether  the  Church  is  in  error 
about  the  Bible,  or  whether  it  is  right.  How  can 
we  know  this  except  by  criticism?"  That  the 
reasoning  in  this  paragraph  is  not  conclusive  or 
valid  may  be  demonstrated  by  reversing  its  point 
and  noticing  how  applicable  it  is  when  thus  reversed. 
For  example,  let  us  say:  "  You  may  be  willing  to 
receive  the  Bible  on  the  authority  of  specialists, 
experts,  scholars,  Higher  Critics,  but  there  are 
multitudes  who  cannot  do  this  ;  they  want  to  know  by 
what  authority  Higher  Critics  claim  that  the  Bible  is 
the  Word  of  God.  Higher  Criticism  has  committed 
so  many  sins  against  truth  and  fact  that  it  is  neces- 
sary for  us  to  know  whether  the  Higher  Criticism  is 
in  error  about  the  Bible,  or  whether  it  is  right.  How 
can  we  know  this  except  by  inquiring  of  the  Church, 
the  Guardian  of  the  Bible,  its  history  and  nature  ?  " 
*The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  pp.  119,  120. 


46  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

The  fact  is  neither  this  position  nor  the  position 
of  Professor  Briggs,  which  is  not  a  whit  stronger 
than  this,  is  tenable.  The  Bible  commends  itself, 
apart  from  criticism  or  the  authority  of  the  Church, 
as  a  source  of  religious  information  and  inspiration. 
Criticism  and  the  Church  may  increase  or  diminish 
the  light  in  which  the  Bible  is  used,  but  they  are  not 
absolutely  necessary,  either  singly  or  combined,  to 
authenticate  the  Bible. 

To  sum   up,   therefore,   while  it  is    from  every 
point  of  view  of  the  utmost  importance  that  investi- 
gation should  be  encouraged   in   the 

Conclusion.  ... 

pursuit  of  the  objects  aimed  at  by  the 
Higher  Criticism;  while  it  is  necessary  that  some 
views  be  held  regarding  these  subjects,  and  that 
these  views  must  be  wrong  if  not  right;  while  it  is 
a  solemn  duty  to  seek  the  most  light  that  can  be 
secured,  and  to  hold  the  views  which  are  the  nearest 
to  the  truth  on  these  subjects;  it  is  not  so  necessary 
that  all  use  of  the  Bible  without  the  light  which 
may  come  on  it  from  the  Higher  Criticism  is  value- 
less or  misleading. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

I.   THE  LITERARY  METHOD. 

THE  attainment  of  the  objects  enumerated  in  the 
preceding  chapter  may  be  sought  for  in  one  of  two 
ways;  /.  e.,  either  through  the  testi-  Kindsofevi- 
mony  of  competent  witnesses,  who  Can  dence- 
give  such  information  as  will  solve  them;  or  by 
examining  the  characteristics  of  the  productions 
and  comparing  these  with  each  other.  And  by 
characteristics  in  this  connection  are  meant,  first, 
the  phenomena  of  the  productions  as  literary  works; 
and,  secondly,  the  statements  found  in  them  regard- 
ing themselves. 

The  first  of  these  modes  of  solving  the  critical 
problems  is  the  way  of  external  evidence;  the 
second  the  way  of  internal  evidence. 

J  External  and 

External  evidence  is  historical  in  its  internal, 
character  ;  its  value  depends  on  the  trustworthiness 
of  the  witness  who  gives  it.  It  is  generally  agreed 
to  that  the  highest  value  attaches  to  the  testimony 
of  eye-witnesses,  and  that  as  soon  as  such  testimony 
is  known  to  be  not  that  of  eye-witnesses,  but  that  of 
men  who  have  obtained  it  at  second  hand,  it  assumes 
the  character  of  "tradition";  it  is  open  to  the 
doubts  and  limitations  of  traditional  testimony,  and 


48  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

is  in  general  classified  as  such.  This  sort  of  tradi- 
tional evidence  the  Higher  Criticism  admits  only 
indirectly,  and  in  order  to  ascertain  how  far  its 
results  may  conflict  or  agree  with  this  evidence. 
The  more  precise  definition  of  the  relations  of 
tradition  and  criticism  will  be  considered  at  an 
appropriate  place  in  this  discussion.  It  is  sufficient 
to  note  at  the  present  the  fact  that  traditional  evi- 
dence is  not  the  direct  subject  of  investigation  in 
the  Higher  Criticism,  strictly  speaking.  But  his- 
torical evidence  which  cannot  in  any  way  be  called 
traditional  is  also  excluded  from  the  field.  And 

External  evi-    tn^s  not  so  mucn  as  a  matter  of  theory, 
dence  excluded.  but  of  practical  necessity.     It  is  not 

denied  that  historical  testimony  at  first  hand,  or  the 
testimony  of  eye-witnesses  of  undoubted  competency 
and  character,  if  obtainable,  would  be  paramount 
and  even  final.  But  the  value  of  this  principle  is 
lost  when  we  take  into  account  the  fact  that  such 
testimony  is  available  only  in  rare  instances  with 
reference  to  ancient  and  medieval  literary  produc- 
tions, and  is  utterly  lacking  as  far  as  the  books  of 
the  Bible  are  concerned.  History,  as  far  as  it  is 
external  to  these  books,  tells  us  nothing  directly 
about  their  origin.  As  far  as  it  throws  light 
indirectly  on  the  periods  and  regions  within  which 
they  may  have  originated,  it  is  not  within  the 
scope  of  criticism  but  of  archeology  to  examine  the 
information  secured.  Accordingly  we  shall  be  led 
to  consider,  at  the  proper  place,  the  relations  of 
criticism  and  archeology.  For  the  present  we  may 
note  that  criticism  has  no  direct  use  to  make  of 
external  evidence  of  this  sort  more  than  of  tradition; 


THE    METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.        49 

though  for  different  reasons,  as  already  explained. 
We  are  thus  led  to  limit  the  field  within  which  the 
Higher  Criticism  may  carry  on  its  investigations  to 
internal  evidence.  Its  work  here  consists  in  esti- 
mating the  significance  of  the  facts  to  Internal  evi. 
be  found  in  the  books  as  literary  pro-  dence  admitted, 
ductions,  in  comparing  these  with  one  another,  and 
reaching  conclusions  on  this  basis.*  It  does  not 
concern  itself  with  opinions  regarding  these  facts, 
no  matter  how  old  or  by  whom  held;  but  with  the 
facts  themselves.  The  evidence  it  deals  with  is 
internal.  But  in  dealing  with  such  a  book  as  the 
Bible  the  term  internal  must  include  evidence  found 
in  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  not  evidence 

r          i  •    i    i        i        i  Term   "  inter- 

found   within   the    special   book    that  nai"    in     the 

Bible. 

may   be    under    investigation   at   any 
special  time.     Light  may  be  thrown  by  the  various 
parts  of  one  book  not  only  on  that  book  but  on  the 
whole  collection  commonly  known  as  the  Bible. 

The     question,    therefore,    in     formulating    the 
methods  of  the   Higher   Criticism,  resolves   itself 
into    the    following:     What    are    the     classification 
different  classes  of  phenomena  which  °fmethods- 
serve  as  a  basis   for  forming  an  estimate  of  the 
authorship,  date,  and  historical  situation  of  a  writ- 
ing ?    As  each  class  of  phenomena  must  be  treated 

*  In  a  relative  sense  such  considerations  are,  of  course,  entitled 
to  be  called  external ;  and  in  this  relative  sense  the  word  is  used  in 
Professor  Briggs'  enumeration  of  the  rules  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 
He  classifies  these  into  :  (A)  External,  comprising  (a)  Use,  and 
(b)  Silence  ;  and  (B)  Internal,  including  (a)  Style  (b)  Historic 
setting,  (c)  Theological  content,  and  (d)  Citation.  Cf.  The  Reason, 
the  Church,  and  the  Bible,  p.  135  seq. 


50  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

according  to  its  peculiar  genius,  the  methods  will 
naturally  correspond  to  these  classes. 

In  answer  it  is  possible  to  find  a  line  of  division 
given  by  the  distinction  between  form  and  content. 
There  are  phenomena  of  a  purely  formal  character, 
such  as  the  diction,  style,  etc.,  and  phenomena  of  a 
material  character,  such  as  the  historical  content 
or  allusions,  and  the  content  of  thought;  or,  in  the 
case  of  the  Bible,  the  theology  taught.  These  two 
classes  of  phenomena  have  been  very  conveniently 
separated  into  three  in  the  actual  use  made  of  them 
for  the  purposes  of  the  Higher  Criticism;  and  it 
will,  therefore,  serve  all  practical  purposes  if  we 
adopt  the  threefold  division  in  what  follows.  The 
three  methods  of  the  Higher  Criticism  are :  The 
literary  method,  which  works  on  and  through  the 
literary  features  of  language,  style,  etc. ;  the  his- 
torical method,  which  deals  with  historical  features; 
and  the  theological  method,  which  bases  itself  on 
the  characteristics  of  the  theology.  These  three 
methods  are  sometimes  called  arguments  for  the 
results  to  which  they  lead,  and  they  may  be  called 
indiscriminately  methods  or  arguments.  We  now 
proceed  to  examine  these  arguments  in  detail. 

I.  THE  LITERARY  ARGUMENT. — This  is  based,  as 

already  indicated,   on  qualities  of  expression.     Its 

fundamental     principle     is     that    an 

i.  Literary  .  . 

method :  its  author  will  be  consistent  with  him- 
self in  the  use  of  words,  idioms, 
phrases,  and  figures  of  speech.  "The  style  is  the 
man."  It  is  well  known  that  every  literary  man 
develops  peculiarities,  sometimes  more  and  some- 
times less  marked,  but  always  real  and  perceptible, 


THE    METHODS    OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.         51 

which  betray  his  personality  in  his  work.  He  may 
disguise  himself;  but  if  he  succeed  it  will  be  at  the 
expense  of  great  effort  and  by  dint  of  long  and 
patient  labor.  The  least  tendency  to  slacken  his 
attention  or  diminish  the  strenuousness  of  his  effort 
to  maintain  his  disguise,  the  least  tendency  to  fall 
back  into  his  natural  habits  of  expression,  will 
endanger  his  success.  Without  an  effort  to  con- 
ceal his  identity  he  must  necessarily  exhibit  those 
traits  which  distinguish  him  from  all  other  authors. 

This  principle  is,  no  doubt,  valid,  and,  wherever 
it  can  be  used,  it  is  extremely  valuable.  It  is 
particularly  useful  in  determining  questions  of 
authorship  and  integrity.  Given  a  writing  known 
to  be  the  work  of  a  certain  author,  the  critic  has 
a  basis  for  judging  whether  another  writing  is  also 
his  or  not.  The  special  phases  of  the  argument 
are  the  use  of  words,  idioms,  phrases,  and  rhetori- 
cal figures,  or  all  the  features  commonly  grouped 
together  under  the  single  term  of  style. 

i.  With  reference  to  the  use  of  words  the  general 
principle  is,  of  course,  that  out  of  the  mass  of 
vocables  in  any  language  each  indi- 
vidual has  at  command  only  a  limited  as  'means  of  y 
number;  that  the  vocabulary  of  no  Ju 
two  individuals  is  precisely  the  same,  and  that  each 
one  recurs  to  his  own  vocabulary,  choosing  his  own 
favorite  words  out  of  the  list  of  their  synonyms. 
In  case  a  particular  shade  of  meaning  is  not  ade- 
quately expressed  by  the  words  at  command  he  may 
resort  to  the  use  of  a  phrase;  whereas,  if  his  vocabu- 
lary were  coextensive  with  the  vocabulary  of  the 
language,  he  would  find  the  special  term  needed, 


52  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Another  person  using  the  same  language,  whose 
vocabulary  had  a  different  range,  might  have  been 
familiar  with  the  word  and  used  it  in  the  proper 
place. 

Whenever  the  language  has  many  synonymous 
terms  for  the  expression  of  a  given  concept,  the 

Use  of  s  no-      nabit  grows  on  one  using  it  to  settle 
nyms.  down,  so  to  speak,  to  the  use  of  cer- 

tain of  these  synonyms  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
others.  Associated  with  this  habit  is  another,  that 
of  disregarding  the  specific  shades  of  meaning 
attached  to  synonymous  words  and  using  them 
interchangeably,  or  using  the  favorite  synonym 
when  a  more  appropriate  word  should  have  been 
selected. 

Another  tendency  or  habit,   somewhat  different 
in  its  nature  and  effect,  is  that  of  using  words  in 

Peculiar  use     peculiar    senses    not    warranted    by 
of  word.  their   etymology   or   historical  usage. 

The  number  of  words  that  any  single  person  is 
likely  to  divert  in  this  manner  from  their  proper 
use  is  ordinarily  very  small.  In  most  cases  it  is 
so  small  as  not  to  be  appreciable;  but  there  are 
exceptional  individuals,  who  either  from  force  of 
education,  or  from  an  innate  tendency,  vary  so 
much  in  their  use  of  terms  from  the  standards  of 
usage  that  they  have  been  misunderstood  by 
ordinary  readers,  or  else  neglected  on  account  of 
the  obscurity  which  necessarily  results  from  this 
habit.  Especially  is  this  apt  to  be  the  case  with 
those  who  have  worked  in  the  field  of  philosophy, 
attempting  to  construct  original  systems  or  break- 
ing ground  in  new  branches.  There  have  been 


THE    METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.        53 

authors  of  this  class  who  have  departed  so  much 
from  the  ordinary  meanings  of  words  that  special 
vocabularies  of  their  works,  commentaries  on  or 
editions  of  them  with  notes  and  explanations,  have 
been  called  for  to  make  their  writings  intelligible. 
These  peculiarities,  whether  more  or  less  striking, 
it  is  the  aim  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to  utilize 
through  its  literary  method  or  argument. 

2.  Another  field  where  characteristics  are  apt  to 
be  developed  is  that  of  idioms  and  phrases.  Every 
language  has  its  stock  of  grammatical  idioms  and 
constructions  different  from  the  nor-  Phrases- 
mal  and  natural,  and  therefore  called  idiomatic,/.  <?., 
peculiar  to  that  language.  And  as  in  the  use  of  the 
words  of  a  language,  so  also  in  the  use  of  its  idioms, 
no  two  persons  have  the  same  skill  or  follow  the 
same  mode  of  procedure.  One  man,  for  instance, 
may  use  an  idiomatic  phrase  because  he  has  heard 
it  used,  but  has  not  fully  grasped  its  peculiar  shade 
of  meaning;  while  another  may  use  it  with  that  full 
appreciation  of  what  it  conveys  that  truly  makes  it 
an  idiom.  So,  sometimes,  the  use  of  idioms  is 
similar  to  the  use  of  expletives  with  very  little 
distinctive  meaning  attached  to  them;  sometimes 
they  emphasize  particular  phases  of  thought  not 
expressible  in  single  words;  sometimes  their  use 
is  habitual,  a  peculiarity  acquired  by  long  and  con- 
stant use,  either  consciously  or  unconsciously  to  the 
one  who  is  using  them;  and  sometimes,  finally,  such 
use  is  the  result  of  a  natural  quality  of  mind,  a 
fondness  for  the  singular  and  striking  inherited,  it 
may  be,  from  one's  ancestry.  But  in  whatever  way 
one  has  come  to  use  them,  or  whatever  his  method 


54  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

of  using  them,  it  gives  distinctiveness  to  the  result 
of  his  writing  and  furnishes  the  critic  with  a  basis 
of  operations  in  establishing  his  identity. 

3.  Still  another  field  where  individual  character- 
istics are  apt  to  show  themselves  in  literary  work 
is  the  rhetorical  quality  of  the  style. 

Rhetorical 

qualities  of  There  is  a  real  difference  between  the 
tendencies  of  different  men  in  the 
matter  of  the  use  of  rhetorical  figures.  One  is 
addicted  to  the  use  of  inverted  order  in  the  con- 
struction of  his  sentences;  another  to  frequent 
parentheses;  another  to  abrupt  transitions;  another 
to  repetition  of  the  same  thought  in  different  words 
in  two  or  more  consecutive  sentences;  while  another 
repeats  the  same  word  in  two  consecutive  sentences 
expressive  of  different  thoughts.  One  writer  is 
distinguished  for  his  fondness  for  hyperbolic 
expressions,  another  for  metaphorical  language; 
one  for  a  habit  of  personifying  inanimate  objects 
and  another  for  the  frequent  use  of  interrogation; 
one  may  be  dry  and  statistical,  another  imaginative, 
picturesque,  and  poetical. 

And   within   the   limited   sphere  of  these   pecu- 
liarities   developed   by  each   much  difference   will 
be  discerned  by   the  careful  student 

Refinements. 

of  style.  Of  two  writers  equally  ad- 
dicted to  the  use  of  metaphors  one  may  be  refined 
and  chaste  in  his  selection  of  figures,  while  the 
other  may  be  coarse  and  homely.  One  may  be 
accustomed  to  manufacture  his  figures,  while  the 
other  culls  them  from  the  masterpieces  of  litera- 
ture. One  may  be  inclined  to  elaborate  these 
figures,  while  the  other  condenses  them  or  flashes 


THE   METHODS  OF   THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM.        55 

them  out  in  sharp  and  short  sentences.  One  may 
derive  his  parallels  from  history,  while  the  other 
resorts  to  nature  for  his  illustrations.  These  are 
simply  samples  of  the  differences  which  actually 
occur  in  the  writings  of  different  authors.  They 
might  be  multiplied,  if  there  were  need  for  it,  at 
much  greater  length. 

It  scarcely  needs  to  be  said  that  all  character- 
istics are  observed  and  recognized  not  as  individual 
traits  of  style  merely,  but  in  their  Grouping  of 
various  and  characteristic  combina-  peculiarities, 
tions.  Though  even  as  individual  traits  they  might 
and  actually  are  very  valuable  in  many  cases,  yet 
as  they  occur  sometimes  in  one  combination,  and 
sometimes  in  another,  the  force  of  the  inference 
drawn  from  them  is  enhanced.  Just  as  the  occur- 
rence of  certain  groups  of  lines  in  the  spectroscope 
is  a  sure  sign  to  the  spectroscopist,  as  he  analyzes 
the  light  coming  from  some  distant  star,  that  cer- 
tain primitive  chemical  elements  exist  in  the  con- 
stitution of  that  star,  because  the  lines  are  known 
to  be  grouped  in  the  same  relations  whenever  those 
chemical  elements  are  found  in  earthly  bodies,  so  in 
determining  the  unknown  factors  of  a  literary  pro- 
duction, the  grouping  together  of  characteristics  of 
style  constitutes  to  the  critic  a  sign  of  individuality 
more  or  less  sure,  as  these  characteristics  are  more 
or  less  definite  and  palpable. 

The  validity  of  these  considerations  can  hardly 
be  questioned.    All  such  indications  of  individuality 
or  of  local  color  are  constantly  used      style  and  dic_ 
even   by   the   most   inexperienced   in  tion- 
literary  matters.      Let   a   striking  article  be  pub- 


56  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

lished  in  some  prominent  magazine  or  review,  and 
it  instantly  sets  the  whole  reading  public  to  guess- 
ing who  the  author  may  be  ;  and  in  guessing,  each 
one  justifies  his  or  her  conjecture  on  the  basis  of 
some  known  peculiarity  of  style  or  expression. 
The  fact  that  these  guesses  are  quite  often  mistaken 
indicates  not  the  falseness  of  the  logic  on  which 
they  proceed,  but  the  lack  of  skill  or  sound  judg- 
ment on  the  part  of  those  who  make  them.  In 
other  words  the  criticism  which  underlies  such  un- 
successful efforts  is  futile  not  because  of  the  argu- 
ment it  uses,  but  because  of  the  indiscriminate  way 
in  which  it  uses  it.  For  criticism  is,  after  all,  the 
exercise  of  sound  judgment  ;  and  in  order  to  secure 
soundness  of  judgment,  it  is  necessary  to  secure 
favorable  conditions  for  it. 

What,  then,  are  the  favorable  conditions  for  the 
use  of  the  literary  argument  ?  Let  it  be  remem- 

conditionsfor  bered  that  the  argument  proceeds 
proper  use.  from  peculiarities  in  expression. 
Where  there  is  a  single  writing  to  be  examined,  and 
comparison  is  impossible,  further  progress  is,  of 
course,  impossible  except  perhaps  in  locating  it 
within  a  very  general  surrounding.  But  where 
there  are  more  than  one  writing,  and  the  question 
turns  on  the  identity  of  the  author,  or  where  there 
is  one  document,  but  the  question  is  one  of  the 
unity  of  its  authorship,  progress  depends  on  the 
nature  of  the  peculiarities  discovered.  If  we  sup- 
pose that  there  are  striking  resemblances  between 
the  peculiarities  of  different  writings,  the  identity 
of  whose  author  is  questioned,  the  next  step  to  be 
taken  is  to  ask,  Are  these  resemblances  sufficient  to 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.        $7 

warrant  the  inference  of  identity  ?  or  are  they  such 
as  may  be  explained  on  some  other  and  more 
reasonable  ground  ?  Or  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
suppose  that  there  are  differences  in  one  document 
or  in  more  than  one,  purporting  to  be  the  works 
of  one  author,  the  next  step  will  be  to  ascertain 
whether  these  differences  are  such  as  to  drive  us  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  different  parts  are  works  of 
different  authors,  and  that  the  unity  is  only  appar- 
ent or  factitious.  For  while  differences  in  the  style 
and  language  of  different  writings  may  arise  from 
difference  of  authorship,  they  may  also  arise  from 
other  causes.  Among  these  we  may  notice  : 

i.  Difference  in  time  of  writing.  The  style  of 
the  same  author  may  be  different  according  to  his 
age.  One  may  be  highly  exuberant  in 

Style    shows  : 

youth,  but  calm  in  old  age  ;  very  im-  x.  Time  of  writ- 
aginative  and  picturesque  at  first,  but 
very  prosy  and  dry  in  later  life.  Or  the  opposite  of 
this  may  be  the  case  ;  one  may  be  labored  and  dull  as 
he  begins,  and  may  acquire  grace  and  freedom,  sim- 
plicity and  ease,  as  he  grows  in  experience,  and  thus 
present  an  entirely  different  aspect  at  the  latter  end 
of  his  course.  Or  again,  in  case  one  writes  little, 
and  at  long  intervals,  changes  may  come  over  his 
modes  of  expression  of  which  no  record  is  left  ;  so 
that  his  later  utterances  may  betray  no  likeness  to 
his  earlier.  The  chain  of  connection  between  the 
earlier  and  the  later  style  may  be  thus  broken  by  an 
interval  of  literary  inactivity.  The  fact  of  his  writ- 
ing only  casually  and  for  practical  ends  may  make 
it  impossible  for  him  to  acquire  literary  habits  that 
shall  be  distinct,  and  recognizable,  and  permanent, 


58  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

and  shall  put  his  earlier  and  later  writings  into  line 
of  affiliation  or  family  resemblance.  This  possi- 
bility ought  to  be  borne  in  mind,  especially  in  deal- 
ing with  productions  coming  from  a  primitive  and 
rude  age,  whose  tendencies  were  altogether  other 
than  literary.  It  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind  also  in 
dealing  with  the  production  of  unliterary  individuals. 
If  a  general  or  military  man  should  undertake  to 
write  books,  his  style  may  not  prove  as  consistent 
and  characteristic  as  the  style  of  a  purely  literary 
man.  So,  if  an  author  is  an  author  only  secondarily 
and  a  man  of  affairs,  a  laboring  man,  or  what  not, 
primarily,  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  lack  of 
uniformity  or  consistency  in  his  style.  Change  of 
employment  may  also  induce  change  in  modes  of 
thought  and  expression.  When  a  military  man,  for 
instance,  like  Ambrose  of  Milan  becomes  a  bishop, 
it  would  be  natural  to  anticipate  a  change  in  his 
literary  style. 

2.  But  secondly  a  cause  of  difference  in  style  is 
to  be  found  in  the  character  of  the  subject  to  be 
a.  Subject  to  treated.  History  and  historical  ac- 
be  treated.  counts  cannot  properly  be  dealt  with 
poetically;  and  conversely,  poetry  would  lose  its 
special  character  if  it  were  treated  in  a  narrative 
style.  In  our  own  days  this  differentiation  of 
literary  departments  is  so  marked  that  each  depart- 
ment has  gathered  a  mass  of  technical  terms  neces- 
sitating the  construction  of  separate  vocabularies  to 
explain  these  terms.  Words  may  be  used  in  philos- 
ophy in  senses  peculiar  and  strange,  and  never 
associated  with  them  in  any  other  form  of  writing. 
Law  and  medicine  and  theology  as  sciences  and 


THE    METHODS   OF   THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.        59 

professions,  in  fact  all  the  sciences  and  the  arts, 
have  developed  peculiar  vocabularies  of  their  own. 
This  differentiation  may  not  have  been  as  sharply 
marked  in  earlier  times,  but  its  incipient  stages  are 
noticeable  even  there.  Thucydides  makes  an  un- 
mistakable difference  between  the  style  of  the  nar- 
rative portions  of  his  history,  and  the  speeches 
which  he  puts  into  the  mouths  of  his  characters. 
And  so  great  is  this  difference  that  it  is  necessary 
to  treat  the  two  separately,  and  one  might  almost 
say  on  different  principles  ;  at  any  rate  the  student 
of  Greek  who  reads  Thucydides  finds  it  convenient 
to  use  different  vocabularies  and  commentaries  as 
he  takes  up  the  narrative  portions  or  the  speeches 
in  this  author.  If  the  speeches  were  to  be  collected 
into  one  under  the  title  of  Orations  of  Thucydides, 
and  the  history  were  to  be  put  by  itself,  the  char- 
acteristic differences  might  have  led  critics  to 
ascribe  the  two  writings  to  different  authors. 

Differences  growing  out  of  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject treated  of  are  apt  to  appear  more  clearly  in 
short  productions  than  in  long  ones. 
Letters,  short  poems,  sonnets,  anec-  8hortpe 
dotes,  speeches  growing  out  of  occa- 
sions and  inspired  by  transient  influences  represent 
the  writer  in  a  short-lived,  though  perhaps  vivid, 
mood  or  state  of  mind.  They  bring  to  the  surface 
and  leave  traces  of  peculiarities  of  language,  which 
it  is  utterly  impossible  to  distinguish  from  peculiari- 
ties due  to  separate  authorship. 

In  such  brief  productions  a  single  word  may  be 
used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  its  synonyms.  The 
same  writer  may  use  an  entirely  different  set  of 


60  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

words  in  some  other  writing.  He  may  use  words 
in*  peculiar  senses — senses  which  he  does  not  usually 
attach  to  them  ordinarily  in  his  other  writings.  It 
is  a  sufficient  explanation  of  these  phenomena  that 
the  writing  was  produced  under  a  given  occasion 
and  was  determined  in  its  external  features  just  as 
much  by  the  nature  of  the  occasion  as  by  the 
innate  peculiarities  of  the  author  himself. 

3.  A  third  cause  of  indifference  in  stylistic  pecu- 
liarities may  be  found  in  the  use  of  different  assist- 
3.    use  of      ants  by   tne  same  author.     The  case 
assistants.  of  juiius  Caesar,  who  was  in  the  habit 

of  dictating  abstracts  of  his  productions  to  different 
secretaries  or  amanuenses,  is  an  illustration  of  the 
principle  at  this  point.  In  primitive  and  what  we 
may  call  military  stages  of  civilization  it  was  almost 
necessary  to  resort  to  the  aid  of  specialists  in 
putting  products  of  mental  activity  before  the 
public.  Charlemagne,  fond  as  he  was  of  education, 
and  eager  to  promote  the  mental  cultivation  and 
development  of  the  peoples  he  governed,  did  not 
himself  write  anything,  as  far  as  we  know.  Some 
historians  interpret  the  statement  of  his  biographer 
that  "  he  regretted  that  his  fingers,  long  accustomed 
to  the  use  of  the  sword,  could  not  be  trained  to  trace 
letters  on  paper  "  as  meaning  that  he  was  not  able 
even  to  use  writing  for  the  commonest  and  most 
practical  purposes.  If  this  interpretation  be  correct, 
all  of  the  work  that  passes  under  his  name  must 
necessarily  have  been  put  into  form  by  secretaries. 
But  whether  it  be  true  or  not  that  he  was  unable  to 
write,  it  is  certainly  true  that  most  if  not  all  the 
legislation  known  as  the  Capitularies,  as  well  as  a 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.        6l 

treatise  on  image-worship  entitled  the  Caroline 
Books,  were  written  by  Charlemagne's  secretaries  in 
his  name. 

And  this  may  have  been  and  probably  was  the 
custom  in  Oriental  lands  in  the  most  ancient  times. 
It  was  probably  in  consequence  of  scribes  in  ori- 
this  custom  or  mode  of  literary  work  ental  countnes- 
that  the  class  of  workers  arose  known  as  the  scribes 
or  writers.  The  scribes  of  the  New  Testament 
times  were  a  class  of  men  whose  functions  were 
manifold.  They  had  special  charge  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Mosaic  law.  But  before  they 
became  interpreters  of  the  law  they  were  evidently 
guardians  of  it,  and  before  they  were  guardians  of 
the  law  they  were  copyists  or  transcribers,  and  before 
they  became  copyists  of  the  law  especially  they  were 
perhaps  simple  and  professional  copyists  or  men  of 
letters,  ready  to  do  literary  work  for  others  who 
were  not  especially  qualified  to  do  this  for  them- 
selves. Such  literary  men  or  "  scribes"  one  sees 
at  the  present  day  in  Oriental  towns,  sitting  in  public 
places  with  their  inkhorns  and  paper,  ready  to  draw 
up  for  stated  prices  letters  or  other  documents  of 
any  sort  for  all  classes  of  people.  Men  of  wealth 
who  have  never  acquired  much  skill  in  composing 
their  own  papers,  as  well  as  poor  persons  who  are 
not  expected  to  write  for  themselves,  resort  to 
these  scribes  for  assistance  in  putting  into  due  form 
their  commercial  correspondence,  their  petitions  to 
the  government,  their  family  histories  and  geneal- 
ogies, and  even  their  correspondence  with  absent 
friends  and  relatives. 

The  degree  of  freedom  which  an  amanuensis  or 


62  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

scribe  of  this  sort  takes  to  himself,  in  fashioning  the 

style  of  a  writing  committed  to  his  care,  naturally 

Freedom  used   will     vary    with    circumstances,    and 

by  assistants.         th(,      result    wiu      be      different     -    Qne 

extreme  may  be  illustrated  by  calling  attention  to 
the  familiar  method  of  modern  business  men  of 
dictating  to  a  stenographer.  The  result  is  a  com- 
plete reproduction,  if  the  scribe  does  his  work  faith- 
fully, of  what  the  author  has  said  even  to  the  choice 
of  the  least  significant  words.  The  part  of  the 
amanuensis  in  this  case  is  purely  mechanical.  He 
virtually  has  no  share  in  forming  the  style.  If  it 
were  to  be  proved  that  this  method  was  employed 
in  the  composition  of  a  writing  no  further  use  could 
be  made  of  the  information  thus  gained  than  to 
establish  the  responsibility  of  the  author  exclusively 
for  the  style  of  the  writing. 

The  opposite  of  this  is  the  extreme  where  the 
bare  substance  of  what  is  to  be  written  is  given  to 
the  scribe  and  by  him  elaborated  in  his  own  words 
and  favorite  idioms.  In  such  a  case  evidently  the 
part  of  the  amanuensis  is  of  the  utmost  importance. 
Though  he  may  add  nothing  to  the  substance  of 
thought,  he  would  have  the  largest  liberty  to  mold 
the  style  of  the  production.  Here  and  there  an 
occasional  favorite  word  or  idiom  of  the  author  him- 
self might  crop  through,  but  in  the  main  it  would 
be  the  language  of  the  amanuensis  that  the  reader 
would  see  throughout.  It  is  manifest  at  once  that 
under  such  a  system  of  literary  work  a  writer  may 
employ  a  different  amanuensis  in  composing  differ- 
ent productions,  and  the  unwary  critic  not  taking 
the  fact  into  account,  or  making  light  of  it,  might 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.        63 

be  misled  to  think  that  works  of  the  same  author 
were  composed  by  different  men. 

Between  these  tw'o  extremes  there  may  be  many 
shades  and  degrees  of  revisory  interference  and 
oversight  on  the  part  of  the  author.  Evidently  the 
problem  of  unraveling  the  composite  work  and 
assigning  to  the  author  and  secretary  each  his 
proper  share  would  be  under  these  circumstances 
not  a  very  easy  one,  to  say  the  least. 

The  degree  of  certainty  attainable  through  the 
use  of  this  literary  weapon  in  criticism  must,  there- 
fore, vary  according  to  the  ability  of  Task  of  the 
the  critic  to  prove  that  all  other  critlc- 
causes  of  similarity  or  difference  in  style  are  not 
real  causes,  and  therefore  such  similarity  or  differ- 
ence is  due  to  the  authorship  of  the  writing  in 
question;  that  it  is  because  the  author  is  one  that 
similarity  exists,  or  that  it  is  because  there  is  more 
than  one  author  that  there  is  difference.  By  as 
much  as  the  critic  fails  to  prove  this,  doubts  will 
naturally  remain  as  to  the  correctness  of  any  radical 
inferences  he  may  draw  from  these  phenomena. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  exposition  of  the 
grounds  and  methods  of  using  the  literary  argument 
that  extreme  caution  and  great  skill 

.   .  Caution  needed. 

are  the  necessary  conditions  of  such 
use.  Of  the  first  of  these  it  will  hardly  be  necessary 
to  say  anything  further.  It  is,  no  doubt,  a  condi- 
tion for  all  successful  work  in  any  field  where  the 
results  of  work  may  be  doubtful.  With  reference 
to  skill  its  necessity  will  not  be  questioned.  And 
yet  we  must  recognize  a  difference  between  expert 
work  of  the  narrower  and  that  of  the  broader  kind, 


64  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

The  narrower  expert,  and  by  that  term  we  mean 
in  this  connection  the  purely  literary  critic  who 
value  of  "  ex-  devotes  his  whole  attention  to  the 
pert"  judgment,  discovery,  classification,  and  interpre- 
tation of  characteristics  of  style  and  expression,  is 
in  some  respects  the  best  judge  of  these  matters. 
His  constant  application  to  one  single  phase  of  the 
subject  makes  him  familiar  with  its  details  and  gives 
him  a  perspective  into  the  situation.  He  can  see 
more  quickly  and  into  more  of  the  minutiae  than 
the  layman.  Shades  of  difference  so  delicate  that 
they  escape  the  eye  of  the  ordinary  uncultivated 
observer  are  plain  to  his  experienced  sense.  The 
value  of  expert's  service  is  no  more  to  be  underesti- 
mated in  this  department  than  in  any  other  depart- 
ment. The  bank  clerk  can  instantly  and  almost 
instinctively  tell  whether  a  bank-note  presented  over 
the  counter  at  which  he  serves  is  genuine  or  counter- 
feit. The  astronomer  can  tell  at  a  glance  whether 
a  mass  of  light  at  which  his  telescope  is  pointed  is 
a  nebula,  a  comet,  or  a  cluster  of  stars.  Similarly 
the  literary  expert  can  tell  differences  between  the 
features  of  two  documents,  between  the  two  parts  of 
the  same  document.  He  can  discover  with  great  ease 
and  precision  the  facts  in  each  case.  And  as  far  as  he 
deals  with  mere  facts  he  ought  certainly  to  command 
all  the  respect  and  deference  that  all  experts  com- 
mand in  the  domain  of  their  specialty.  But  the 
task  of  criticism  is,  as  has  been  already  pointed  out, 
much  larger  than  the  mere  discovery  of  certain 
facts;  it  includes  the  correct  interpretation  of  those 
facts;  and  as  he  approaches  this  part  of  the  task 
the  literary  critic  must  lay  aside  his  narrowness. 


THE    METHODS    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.         65 

He  must  be  an  expert  of  the  broader  kind,  if  he 
shall  maintain  the  claim  to  deference  and  respect 
which  has  been  conceded  him  in  the  Breadth  of 
field  of  literary  criticism  as  a  mere  field  view  needed- 
of  literary  facts.  He  must  be  more  than  a  skilled 
observer  of  characteristics  of  style  or  diction. 
While  his  work  as  a  specialist  may  be  exceedingly 
valuable,  his  very  limitation  to  it  as  a  very  narrow 
specialty  creates  a  certain  unfitness  on  his  part  for 
a  correct  estimate  of  other  than  purely  literary 
or  linguistic  facts.  The  acuteness  he  develops  in 
these  particulars  is  compensated  by  a  loss  of  acute- 
ness  in  other  fields.  Thus,  while  his  judgment  may 
be  relied  on  in  matters  of  linguistic  refinement,  his 
judgment  on  other  matters  might  be  so  much  the 
less  to  be  trusted.  The  expert,  therefore,  who 
would  claim  the  most  implicit  confidence  in  his 
judgment  and  use  of  the  literary  argument  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  is  the  expert  who,  in  addition  to 
his  ability  to  discern  and  point  out  facts  of  language 
and  expression,  is  also  endowed  with  the  further 
ability,  either  native  or  acquired,  of  interpreting 
these  facts  correctly.  And  this  is  an  ability  which 
is  not  easily  acquired  or  frequently  exhibited. 
There  is  no  department  of  investigation  where 
original  and  independent  research  leads  investi- 
gators to  a  wider  variety  of  conclusions  than  the 
meaning  of  the  same  phenomena  in  a  literary  pro- 
duction. The  same  differences,  for  instance,  be- 
tween the  first  and  the  last  half  of  a  writing  will 
appear  to  one  expert  to  indicate  a  difference  of 
authorship;  to  another  only  a  difference  of  purpose 
or  object  in  view;  to  a  third  only  occasional  or  in- 


66  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

cidental  variation;  to  a  fourth  a  difference  of  age 
and  surrounding  in  the  author,  and  to  a  fifth  a  dif- 
ference of  medium  or  amanuensis  employed  in  the 
composition  of  the  two  parts. 

To  sum  up:  In  order  that  a  critic  maybe  followed 
with  any  degree  of  confidence  it  is  necessary  that 
he  should  establish  his  claim  as  a  man 
of  calm  and  broad  culture  as  well  as  a 
man  of  special  experience  and  skill  in  stylistics.     In 
the  hands  of  experts  of  this  class  the  literary  argu- 
ment not  only  can  be  but  has  been  used  with  ex- 
tremely satisfactory  results. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE  METHODS  OF  THE    HIGHER  CRITICISM  (Continued}. 

II.  THE  HISTORICAL  METHOD. 

THE  fundamental  principle  of  the  form  of  reason- 
ing in  this  method  or  argument  is  that  contempo- 
raneous history  is  naturally  reflected  n  The  His. 
and  expressed  in  the  writings  emanat-  torical  Method, 
ing  from  any  age.  This  reasoning  is  similar  to,  but 
larger  than,  that  underlying  the  literary  argument. 
Just  as  in  the  case  of  the  latter  reliance  was  placed 
on  the  unconscious  cropping  out  of  the  personal 
characteristics  of  the  author  of  any  production,  so 
here  the  argument  is  built  on  the  unconscious  ap- 
pearance of  the  traces  of  the  environment.  As 
honey  made  by  bees  that  have  fed  on  buckwheat, 
thyme,  or  any  other  material  betrays  its  origin  by  its 
flavor,  so  literary  work  is  supposed  to  betray  the 
sources  from  which  its  author  derived  his  materials 
and  his  inspiration.  This  is  undoubtedly  a  valid 
form  of  reasoning.  It  may  be  analyzed  into  several 
subordinate  arguments  as  follows  : 

i.  The  facts  and  institutions  of  contemporaneous 
history  are  reflected  in  the  literary  products  of  any 
period.  There  are  two  conditions  on 

,  .  •       •    i  i  '•  Direct  ref- 

which  this  principle  can  be  made  ex-   erences  to  his- 
ceedingly  useful:  first,  sufficient  knowl- 
edge of  the  contemporaneous  history  and  condition 


68  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

of  things  apart  from  the  literary  productions  inves- 
tigated, and  second,  clear  and  marked  traces  of  that 
history  in  the  writings.  In  other  words  this  method 
yields  undisputed  results  when  the  history  environ- 
ing an  author  is  known  well,  even  apart  from  his 
own  writings;  and  when  the  author  is  in  a  true  sense 
a  man  of  his  age,  steeped  in  the  civilization  of  his 
generation,  fond  of  its  institutions,  and  active  in 
participation  in  current  events.  When  these  two 
conditions  are  complied  with,  it  is  not  very  difficult 
in  any  individual  case  to  set  definite  dates  for  books 
or  to  arrange  different  discourses  or  letters  in  their 
proper  order.  It  is  quite  possible  to  take  the 
numerous  writings  of  a  voluminous  writer  and  make 
a  chronological  list  of  them;  to  refer  them  to  their 
respective  occasions  or  to  trace  them  to  their 
causes. 

But  these  conditions,  it  is  needless  to  say,  are 
not  always  present.     And  their  absence  renders  the 

use  of  this  method  of  criticism  a  deli- 
Authors  and 
their  environ-    cate    one,   needing    care    in    its  use. 

There  are  writings  that  come  from 
periods  of  which  scarcely  anything  is  known.  There 
are  other  writings  whose  authors  lived  the  lives  of 
recluses,  separate  from  the  main  streams  of  civiliza- 
tion and  history.  Some  authors  are  not  in  touch 
with  the  men  and  the  events  of  their  respective 
ages.  They  are  indifferent  to  what  is  going  on 
about  them.  Their  works,  therefore,  exhibit  a 
certain  generality  and  vagueness  that  makes  it 
exceedingly  difficult  to  apply  to  them  the  test  under 
consideration.  In  the  sphere  of  the  Old  Testament 
literature  these  two  extremes  might  be  represented 


THE    METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.        69 

by  the  periods  within  which  spring  on  the  one  hand 
the  works  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel;  and  on 
the  other  the  prophecies  of  Joel,  the 

•L       i       r  T    t_  j    i  •<       -i-.  i          T  Illustrations : 

book  of  Job,  and  the  Pentateuch.  In  isaiah,  jere- 
the  first  of  these  two  classes  of  writ- 
ings the  material  outside  of  the  books  themselves 
is  abundant  and  the  authors  have  made  use  of  it 
lavishly;  the  result  is  that  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah 
may  be  grouped  with  sufficient  certainty  about  a 
number  of  well-known  events,  such  as  the  fall  of 
Samaria  and  the  invasions  of  the  Assyrians.  This 
is  indisputable  of  the  first  half  of  Isaiah,  whatever 
view  one  may  hold  of  the  age  of  the  second  part. 
So  also  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  may  be  satis- 
factorily put  into  historical  settings  derived  from 
the  period  of  the  Babylonish  invasion  culminating 
in  the  deportations  under  Jehoiakim  and  Zedekiah. 
The  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  are  to  be  placed  within 
the  period  of  the  exile.  These  are  conclusions 
reached  by  comparing  the  traces  of  the  history 
found  within  these  works  with  the  accounts  of  the 
times  furnished  by  other  sources.  And  these  books 
are  mere  specimens  representing  a  large  class. 
On  the  other  hand  the  prophecies  of  Joel  may  be 
and  have  actually  been  ascribed  to  the  prophecies  of 
earliest  and  to  the  latest  ages  of  pro-  JoeL 
phetic  activity.  Thus  Joel  has  been  placed  as  early 
as  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  ninth  century  B.  c.  and 
as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.*  The 

*  Credner  undertook  to  prove  that  this  prophet  flourished 
between  878  and  839  ;  Kleinert  placed  him  at  875-860  ;  Hitzig  at 
870-860  ;  WUnsche,  860-850  ;  so  also  during  the  ninth  century  in 
general  Steiner,  Reuss,  Movers,  Hofmann,  Delitzsch,  Ewald, 


70  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

book  of  Job  has  been  considered  with  good  reasons 
the  oldest  book  in  the  Bible;  and  with  as  much 

The  Book  of  plausibility  it  has  been  put  among  the 
Job-  latest.  The  reasons  for  the  great 

variety  of  conclusions  as  to  the  dates  of  these  books 
is  that  the  historical  setting  is  not  sufficiently 
reflected  in  them.  The  Pentateuch  furnishes  an 

The  Penta-  illustration  of  the  other  class  of  works; 
teuch-  z.  <?.,  those  which  contain  history  con- 

cerning which  collateral  information  is  wanting. 
As  this  history  is  not  easily  associated  with  anything 
found  outside  of  these  books,  they  form  a  sort  of 
circle  or  world  by  themselves.  The  Pentateuch  is 
as  yet  practically  its  own  only  commentary.  It 
is  true  recent  discoveries  are  tending  to  establish 
a  connection  between  it  and  the  world  within  which 
its  material  is  found,  but  up  to  these  discoveries  it 
was  hardly  possible  to  compare  its  historical  con- 
tent with  what  was  known  of  that  history  outside, 
because  scarcely  anything  was  thus  known.  Hence 
attempts  to  associate  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
with  the  eighth  century  B.  c. ,  or  even  with  the 
period  after  the  exile,  were  made ;  and  many  plausible 
reasons  were  furnished  for  such  association.  But 

Winer,  and  Kirkpatrick.  Others  make  him  a  contemporary  of 
Amos  (about  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century  or  800  B.  c.). 
So  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  DeWette,  Eichhorn,  Rosenmiiller, 
Bleek,  Von  Colin,  and  Schrader,  besides  the  older  scholars 
Vitringa  and  Abarbanel.  Driver  hesitates  between  this  view  and 
the  later,  rather  inclining  to  the  later.  Others  still,  like  Schroeder, 
Kuenen,  and  Farrar,  set  the  date  of  Joel  just  before  the  exile 
(about  700  B.  c.).  Still  others,  finally,  like  Hilgenfeld,  Seinecke, 
Vatke,  Ad.  Merx,  and  Duhm,  assign  him  a  post-exilic  date  as  late 
as  445  B.  c. 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.        7! 

these  reasons  could  not  be  made  conclusive,  because 
there  is  much  in  the  Pentateuch  that  will  not  easily 
be  brought  into  line  with  the  later  dates  above  men- 
tioned.* The  critical  problem  furnished  by  such 
books  is  difficult,  because  it  is  impossible  to  avoid 
reasoning  in  a  circle.  The  critic  is  compelled  to 
construct  the  history  out  of  the  very  documents 
whose  date  and  authenticity  he  is  to  investigate,  and 
then  compare  the  facts  regarding  the  document 
with  the  facts  in  the  document.  This  is  certainly 
not  a  pure  application  of  the  historical  argument. 
It  is  rather  kindred  to  the  special  form  of  that  argu- 
ment which  will  be  later  considered  under  the  name 
of  the  argument  from  concinnity. 

The  force  of  this  first  form  of  the  historical  argu- 
ment must  then  vary  according  to  the  closer  or 
looser  conformity  with  the  conditions  above  named. 
It  may  amount  to  demonstration  in  cases  where 
these  conditions  are  fully  and  squarely  met;  or  it 
may  not  reach  more  than  a  vague  probability,  or 
even  a  bare  possibility,  where  the  conditions  are  not 
fulfilled. 

2.  A  second  form  of  the  historical  argument  may 
be  called  the  argument  from  anachronism.  An 
anachronism  is  a  confusion  in  chro-  3  Anachro- 
nology  by  which  events  are  misplaced  nism> 
with  reference  to  one  another.  It  may  be  used  in 
criticism  in  several  ways.  For  instance,  if  an  event 
is  mentioned  or  implied  in  a  book  or  part  of  a  book; 
that  book,  or  at  least  that  part  or  section  of  it  in 
which  the  mention  or  implication  occurs,  must  have 

*  See  Bissell,  "  Historical  Situation  in  Genesis,"  in  Presbyterian 
and  Reformed  Review,  October,  1895. 


72  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

been  produced  after  the  event.  On  any  other 
theory  of  the  date  the  allusion  to  the  event  is  an 
anachronism.  Anachronisms  are  proofs  of  the 
impossibility  of  the  views  against  which  they  mili- 
tate. They  indicate  carelessness,  disingenuousness, 
or  lack  of  information  on  the  part  of  the  author. 
Ordinarily  this  form  of  reasoning  is  valid  and  useful. 
It  is  not,  however,  free  from  liability  to  misuse.  One 
class  of  works  must  be  made  an  exception  to  its  ap- 
plication— those  which  claim  to  be  predictive  proph- 
ecies, until  their  claim  is  discovered 

Predictions 

not    Anachro-    to  be  unfounded.     The  argument  can 

nisms,  ,         .         t 

be  applied  in  the  case  of  purely  human 
works,  and  such  as  lay  claim  to  nothing  more  than 
mere  human  origin.  It  can  also  be  applied  to 
works  which,  though  claiming  to  owe  their  origin, 
partly  at  least,  to  supernatural  inspiration  and 
guidance,  are  still  not  predictive;  works  in  which 
the  authors  claim  to  speak  not  of  the  future  as  such, 
but  of  the  present  or  past.  An  allusion  to  an  event, 
even  in  a  book  of  the  Bible,  is  presumptive  evidence 
that  the  book  was  written  after  the  event,  when  the 
book  is  apparently  a  history  or  an  epistle  or  a 
psalm.  But  the  principle  is  inapplicable  to  allusions 
to  future  events  in  books  of  predictive  prophecy. 
Its  application  would  be  a  virtual  denial  of  the 
supernatural  origin  of  those  prophecies,  or  at  least 
of  the  possibility  of  predictive  prophecy. 

Let  us  take  a  concrete  illustration.     The  name  of 
Cyrus   appears  in  Isaiah  xlv:  i.     Isaiah  flourished 

two   hundred   years  before   the   time 

Illustration.  T,  1 

of  Cyrus.  If  the  book  were  a  purely 
human  production  we  would  say,  without  hesitation, 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.         73 

that  either  the  whole  or  at  least  that  part  of  the 
book  in  which  this  allusion  to  Cyrus  was  found 
must  have  been  written  after  the  time  of  Cyrus.  In 
such  a  case  Isaiah,  of  course,  could  not  have  been 
the  author  of  the  book,  or  at  least  of  that  passage  in 
it  which  bears  his  name.  But  Isaiah  speaks  in  the 
name  of  God,  and  claims  to  have  re-  isaiah  pre- 
ceived  revelations  of  the  divine  will  dlcts- 
and  purpose.  If  this  claim  be  well  founded,  it  was 
perfectly  possible  for  him  to  have  foreseen  future 
events  and  persons,  as  far  as  they  are  involved  in 
the  divine  purpose.  To  deny  the  validity  of  this 
claim,  without  assigning  any  reason  for  so  doing,  or 
to  ignore  it,  would  be  unscientific  and  arbitrary. 
And  to  treat  the  case  as  an  anachronism  would  be 
to  ignore  or  deny  this  claim.  The  existence  of  the 
name  of  Cyrus  in  a  work  does  not  militate  against 
its  Isaianic  origin  if  it  be  a  prophetic  work.  It  is 
not  necessarily  an  anachronism.  But  if  the  author 
does  not  write  prophecy  here,  but  merely  an  ad- 
dress to  persons  contemporaneous  with  himself, 
and  presumably  speaks  only  of  events  and  persons 
of  his  own  day,  then  evidently  the  ascription  of  the 
passage  to  Isaiah  would  be  an  anachronism.  But 
whether  he  does  this  or  claims  to  be  uttering  a  pre- 
dictive prophecy  it  is  not  the  part  of  criticism  to  say, 
but  a  task  for  exegesis.  When  the  real  meaning  of 
the  author  has  been  brought  to  light,  criticism  can 
then  apply  the  argument  from  anachronism,  or  de- 
clare it  to  be  irrelevant. 

There  is  another  caution  that  must  be  observed 
before  the  argument  is  used  properly.  While  the 
existence  of  an  allusion  to  an  event  in  a  document 


74  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

fixes  that  event  as  the  terminus — extreme  earliest 
date  for  that  statement  which  contains  the  allusion — 
use  of  anach-  **  ^oes  not  necessarily  fix  it  as  the 
ronism  limited,  extreme  earliest  date  for  the  whole 
document.  The  possibility  must  always  be  taken 
into  account  of  the  division  of  the  document  into 
two  parts,  the  first  antedating  the  event,  and  the 
second  coming  after  it.  This  possibility  may  be  a 
very  remote  one,  but  the  critic  has  not  done  his 
work  thoroughly  if  he  has  not  considered  the  ques- 
tion and  answered  it.  And  even  after  this  has  been 
done,  the  further  possibility  of  a  revisory  insertion 
must  be  considered.  The  question  must  be  asked 
and  answered,  whether  the  special  phrase  in  which 
the  anachronism  occurs  may  not  be  an  interpola- 
tion by  a  later  hand.  Here  again  the  possibility 
may  be  very  slight  that  the  text  has  been  interpo- 
lated, but  the  result  would  be  surer  if  it  appeared 
that  interpolation  was  impossible. 

The  use  of  the  argument]  under  these  safeguards 
may  appear  to  be  difficult,  but  this  is  only  an  ap- 
parent and  theoretical  difficulty,  not  a  real  and 
practical  one.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  anachronisms 
do  not  occur  singly  in  writings,  but  in  groups,  and 
the  task  of  the  critic  is  much  simplified  when  he 
finds  them  recurring  over  and  over  again;  as  in  that 
case  the  theory  of  their  being  interpolations  be- 
comes less  and  less  tenable  (even  as  a  supposition) 
the  more  frequent  they  become. 

3.  The  third  form  of  the  historical  argument  is 
in  a  certain  sense  the  counterpart  of  the  argument 
from  anachronism,  and  consists  in  using  silence  as 
a  ground  of  inference.  The  principle,  very  broadly 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.        75 

stated,  is  that  silence  as  well  as  expression  is  sig- 
nificant.     This  principle,  however,  in  order  to  be 
made  practically  useful,  must  be  nar-       3    Argument 
rowed  down  very  much.     The  question    from  silence, 
must  be  asked,  Of  what  is  silence  significant  ?    The 
answer  can  be  one  of  three,  **,  e.,  silence  may  mean 
(i)  ignorance  of  the  facts  in  regard  to       what    does 
which  the  author  is  silent,  or  (2)  in-    silence  mean  ? 
difference  to  them,  or  (3)  design  to  keep  back  or 
suppress  the  knowledge  of  them. 

Taking  the  third  of  these  possible  causes  of 
silence  first  under  consideration,  we  may  notice 
that  intentional  silence  cannot  be  de- 

r.      Suppres- 

monstrated,    except  in  very  rare  in-    sion   of  infor- 

,  .      .  mation. 

stances.  Whenever  this  is  done,  how- 
ever, from  the  nature  of  the  case,  its  further  signif- 
icance and  bearing  upon  the  questions  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  become  clear.  For  the  very  processes 
which  pierce  through  and  lay  bare  the  purpose  of 
an  intended  suppression  of  knowledge  at  the  same 
time  bring  to  light  the  facts  sought  for  by  the 
means  of  criticism.  If,  therefore,  an  author  sets 
out  to  conceal  the  time  and  circumstances  under 
which  he  is  composing  his  productions,  and  studi- 
ously excludes  all  references  that  may  thwart  this 
purpose,  by  the  very  process  by  which  his  intention 
is  not  only  discovered,  but  traced  to  its  causes,  he 
becomes  identified. 

The   second   cause   of  silence   named   above  as 
possible  is  indifference   or  discrimination   on   the 
part  of  the  author  against  the  facts       2.  Neglect  by 
omitted.      All  writing  is    after  all  a    «>«author- 
selective  process  ;  the  writer  choosing,  out  of  what 


76  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

he  has  come  to  know,  that  which  he  considers  of 
the  greatest  importance  or  relevancy  to  the  subject 
he  is  treating  of.  No  author  pretends  to  incorpo- 
rate in  any  one  or  in  all  of  his  writings  the  whole 
sum  of  his  knowledge.  To  begin  with,  a  large  num- 
ber of  details  are  left  out  because  they  are  insignifi- 
cant, Even  though  they  may  not  be 

Things  omit- 
ted may  be  in-    m  reality  insignificant,  let  the  author 

significant. 

suppose  that  they  are,  and  that  is 
sufficient  to  secure  their  omission  from  his  work. 
Or,  it  is  supposable  that  many  details  originally  of 
great  importance  should  lapse  into  insignificance  at 
the  time  of  writing  ;  or  the  reverse  of  this,  details 
insignificant  at  the  time  of  writing  may  attain  to 
greater  prominence  in  the  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject later.  The  author  being  the  judge  in  every  such 
case,  he  will  choose  to  omit  these  details  and  incor- 
porate others  which  in  his  view  are  more  important. 
This  choice  of  material  need  not  always  be  a  con- 
scious process  in  the  mind.  The  writing  may  be 
governed  entirely  by  his  unconscious  promptings 
and  tendencies.  Thus  many  things,  which  if  he 
were  to  deliberate  and  choose  after  mature  thought 
would  have  gone  into  his  production,  may  be  left 
out,  owing  to  natural  forgetfulness  or  a  loose  habit 
of  composition.  The  same  result  may  be  reached 
on  the  ground  not  of  the  intrinsic  insignificance  of 
matters  to  be  taken  into  account,  but  of  their  irrel- 
evancy to  the  subject  under  treatment;  and  in  the 
same  twofold  way  of  conscious  or  unconscious  esti- 
mation of  their  relation  to  the  subject.  And  here 
again,  these  matters,  it  must  be  remembered,  are 
estimated  by  the  author,  not  by  the  critic  or  any 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.        77 

other  person.  The  critic  must  ask  not  what  would 
appear  to  him  to  be  within  the  scope  of  the  writer 
writing  on  such  or  such  subject,  but  AS  estimated 
what  appeared  to  the  author  to  be  by  the  author, 
within  his  scope.  The  relevancy  of  certain  matters 
to  certain  subjects  may  be  agreed  upon  as  un- 
doubted in  many  cases,  but  there  are  also  cases 
where  there  may  exist  a  wide  variety  of  opinion  as 
to  the  pertinency  or  impertinency  of  given  matters 
to  given  subjects  ;  in  all  such  cases  the  exact  view- 
point of-  the  writer  himself  should  be  sought  care- 
fully. When  found  it  should  be  made  the  view- 
point of  the  critic  in  judging  of  the  cause  of  silence. 
The  third  of  the  causes  of  silence  above  men- 
tioned is  ignorance  of  the  facts  concerning  which 
silence  exists.  When  a  writer  is  found  3>  ignorance 
passing  by  certain  facts,  the  most  by  the  author> 
natural  and  the  most  common  inference  drawn  from 
his  course  is  that  he  did  not  know  of  those  facts. 
The  logical  validity  of  this  inference  depends  on 
conditions  to  be  examined  presently.  Meanwhile, 
in  order  to  understand  more  fully  the  exact  force 
of  considerations  of  this  class,  it  is  proper  to  go 
back  of  the  ignorance  which  explains  the  silence 
and  ask  how  that  may  arise,  for  it  must  be  evident 
at  the  first  glance  that  ignorance  is  not  always  to 
be  traced  to  the  same  cause.  First  of  all,  and 
simplest,  ignorance  may  be  due  to  the  non-occurrence 
or  non-existence  of  that  concerning  which  the 
author  is  silent  ;  in  other  words,  the  events  which 
were  expected  to  be  noticed  by  the  author,  and  are 
not  noticed,  may  be  posterior  to  the  time  of  the 
author.  Moses  could  not  have  recorded  the  events 


78  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

of  the  life  of  David  or  Solomon.  The  force  in 
criticism  of  silence  due  to  this  sort  of  ignorance  is 
similar  to,  only  the  reverse  of,  the  argument  from 
anachronism.  Just  as  an  anachronism  has  the 
force  of  fixing  the  earliest  date  for  the  document  in 
which  it  occurs,  so  silence  would  have  the  force  of 
fixing  the  latest  date.  The  document  must  have 
been  composed  earlier  than  that  of  which  it  is 
ignorant.  But  secondly,  ignorance  may  be  due  not 
inference  from  to  tne  non-occurrence  of  that  which 
such  ignorance.  is  01^^  but  to  lack  of  opportunity 
on  the  part  of  the  author  to  become  acquainted  with 
it.  And  this  again  may  result  from  the  nature  of 
the  event,  institution,  or  person  ignored,  or  from 
the  character  of  the  author  himself.  It  results 
from  the  nature  of  the  facts  ignored  when  these  are 
local,  remote  from  the  common  life  and  interest  of 
men,  and  insignificant.  It  results  from  the  character 
of  the  author  when  he  is  a  person  of  defective  obser- 
vation or  small  mind,  or  otherwise  limited  ability  ; 
or  when  he  lives  far  from  the  centers  where  he 
might  obtain  information  ;  or  when  he  has  neg- 
lected to  use  ordinary  diligence  and  available 
means  for  securing  the  needed  information.  Igno- 
rance originating  in  this  way  will  be  very  valuable  to 
the  critic  as  he  approaches  the  question  of  the  value 
of  any  writing  either  general  or  specific.  It  may 
show  the  author  to  have  been  incompetent  or  care- 
less, but  it  cannot  be  used  as  the  equivalent  of 
ignorance  due  to  non-occurrence. 

These  principles  may  be  applied  to  the  determina- 
tion of  the  date  and  historical  environment  of  writ- 
ings by  estimating  the  value  and  significance  of  the 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.        79 

silence  of  the  writings  themselves,  regarding  events 
which  they  might  have  been  expected  to  allude  to. 
They  may  be  applied  in  the  second 

Applications 

place   to    the    determination    of    the     of  above  prin- 

•  •    •  ciples. 

date  and  circumstances  of  origin  of 
writings,  by  examining  other  writings  and  the  sig- 
nificance of  their  silence  concerning  them,  and  they 
may  be  applied  thirdly  in  the  determination  of  the 
date  and  manner  of  origin,  of  institutions,  and 
events,  as  preliminary  to  the  determination  of  the 
same  questions  with  regard  to  literary  productions. 
In  illustrating  them  thus  far  we  have  limited  our- 
selves to  their  application  first  above  mentioned. 
We  are  now  prepared  to  go  a  step  further,  and 
glance  at  these  applications  severally,  including  the 
first. 

The  argument  has  been  succinctly  stated  as  fol- 
lows: "Arguments  e  sileniio  are  only  of  force  when 
a  strong  independent  probability  can  be 

First  applica- 

estabhshed  that  the  writers  would  have    tion :  Rule  de- 

duccd. 

used  it  [the  material  of  which  they 
are  silent],  or  would  at  least  have  expressed  them- 
selves otherwise  than  they  did,  if  they  had  known  of 
it."  *  This  may  be  regarded  as  a  fair  statement  of 
the  principle  that  should  govern  the  application  of 
the  argument  in  determining  the  question  of  author- 
ship and  date.  The  non-occurrence  of  allusions  to 
events,  documents,  men,  institutions,  proper  use  of 
etc.,  when  a  strong  antecedent  proba-  argument- 
bility  can  be  established  that  they  would  have  oc- 
curred had  they  been  known  to  the  writers,  is  an 
evidence  of  their  being  unknown  ;  and  this,  in  a  case 
*  Bacon,  Genesis  of  Genesis,  p.  32. 


8o  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

where  the  antecedent  probability  is  that  they  would 
have  been  known  if  they  had  occurred,  is  strong 
evidence  that  they  had  not  occurred  at  the  time  of 
the  writers.  The  critical  question  of  the  date  of 
the  authors  would  receive  all  the  light  that  may 
come  from  the  establishment  of  these  conclusions. 
The  question  then  turns  on  how  can  an  antecedent 
probability  be  established  that  any  writer  would 
have  used  knowledge  possessed  by  him  ;  and 
further  :  How  can  such  probability  be  established 
that  he  would  have  known  certain  facts  if  they  had 
occurred  ?  In  other  words,  What  are  the  conditions 
on  which  an  expectation  maybe  entertained  of  find- 
ing allusions  to  any  given  events  or  the  influence  of 
any  given  situation  ?  The  answer  to  such  a  ques- 
tion is,  naturally,  not  easy;  nor  can  it  be  framed  in 
such  distinct  and  specific  terms  that  it  may  be  used 
uniformly  and  with  the  same  confidence  in  every 
case.  Still,  in  general  and  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  already  discussed,  these  conditions  may 
be  defined  as  follows  : 

i.    Importance    in    the  matters  expected   to    be 

met.     It  could  hardly  be  expected  that  every  detail 

would  be  incorporated  by  every  writer 

i.  Importance          , 

of  things  omit-  subsequent  to  its  occurrence.  It  is 
true  that  details  are  very  frequently 
recorded,  and  that  where  they  would  least  have 
been  looked  for.  It  is  also  true,  as  Dr.  Briggs 
says,*  that  the  science  of  history  depends  on 
the  expectation  that  whatever  occurs  leaves  its 
record  and  is  somehow  made  known  ;  but  it  is 

*  Paper  in  the  Journal  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Literature  and 
Exegesis,  1883,  p.  8, 


THE    METHODS    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.        8l 

true,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  weakness  of 
the  science  of  history  consists  in  the  fact  that 
some  things  evade  this  law,  or  rather  that  this 
law  is  not  universal  in  its  application,  and  the 
record  of  some  things  is  never  made  ;  or  being  once 
made  is  not  deemed  of  sufficient  consequence  to  the 
world  to  be  perpetuated,  and  is  thus  lost.  And  it  is 
further  true  that  many  unimportant  features  of  a 
transaction  may  and  do  often  impress  themselves 
on  the  minds  of  observers  or  historians,  and  ac- 
quire a  meretricious  importance;  usurping  the  place 
of  the  more  cardinal  features,  and  by  reiterations 
come  to  be  considered  the  salient  points  of  history. 
But  all  this  is  determined  CL  posteriori.  As  to  what 
minor  features  of  a  historic  situation  or  transaction 
shall  find  its  way  into  the  records,  it  is  not  possible 
to  say  a  priori.  While  the  historian,  therefore,  may 
be  thankful  for  any  minute  information  that  he  may 
receive  concerning  such  matters,  he  cannot  outline 
to  himself  the  extent  of  the  world  that  he  may  ex- 
pect in  his  sources.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  reason- 
able to  expect  that  the  cardinal  or  pivotal  events 
and  personalities  of  history  should  pass  into  every 
comprehensive  record  of  their  period.  It  can  be 
safely  insisted,  therefore,  that  silence  regarding 
these  events  is  an  unexpected  feature  in  a  record 
of  this  sort  and  must  be  explained.  The  antece- 
dent probability  is  quite  strong  that  the  writer 
would  have  mentioned  them  had  he  known  them.* 

*  Sometimes  very  slight  causes  may  determine  the  insertion  or 
omission  of  items  from  the  consideration  of  a  subject.  Intimate 
familiarity,  for  instance,  may  lead  to  the  omission  of  certain  things 
on  the  ground  that  they  are  too  commonplace  to  need  mention. 


82  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

2.  A  second  condition  creating  such  antecedent 
probability  is  pertinency  or  relevancy  to  the  subject 
2.  Relevancy    under  treatment.    The  matter  omitted 
to  subject.  must  be  germane  or  within  the  scope 

of  the  subject.  It  would  not  be  reasonable,  for  in- 
stance, to  expect  the  mention  of  the  military  exploits 
of  Charlemagne,  or  the  wresting  of  the  Magna 
Charta  from  the  king  of  England,  in  a  history  of 
Gothic  architecture.  The  nature  of  the  subject 
would  not  demand  it.  In  fact  a  proper  economy  of 
style  would  lead  to  the  exclusion  of  everything  not 
within  the  scope  of  the  subject.  And  this  principle 
should  be  applied  with  greater  rigor  to  ancient  writ- 
ings than  to  modern  ;  because  modern  modes  of 
research  and  composition  are  more  searching  and 
broader  in  their  survey  of  subjects.  The  modern 
writer  knows,  as  the  ancient  did  not,  the  importance 
of  side-lights,  the  value  of  showing  a  subject  in  its 
interrelations  with  other  kindred  subjects,  of  bring- 
ing to  the  surface  the  inner  and  hidden  meaning  of 

The  writer  may  assume  that  they  are  too  familiar  to  be  specially 
alluded  to.  An  eminent  authority  on  early  English  literature  de- 
livered a  lecture  of  over  an  hour's  length  on  the  life  and  work  of 
the  historian  Bede,  and  never  once  either  directly  mentioned  or  in- 
directly betrayed  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  subject  of  his 
lecture  had  earned  or  was  ascribed  the  title  of  the  "  Venerable." 
Was  he  ignorant  of  that  fact  ?  It  is  incredible.  Evidently  noth- 
ing but  the  extremely  commonplace  character  of  the  fact  could 
account  for  the  apparent  neglect  of  it.  And  in  this  regard  again 
it  is  worth  observing  that  the  more  a  writer  aspires  after  original- 
ity, the  more  he  avoids  treading  in  the  beaten  paths  and  seeks 
to  make  his  own  way  in  the  subjects  of  which  he  treats,  the  more 
apt  he  will  be  not  to  incorporate  the  trite  and  commonplace  in  his 
writings. 


THE   METHODS   OF   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.        83 

facts,  by  associating  them  with  facts  from  allied 
and  connected  fields.  While  the  ancient  author 
might  have  made  an  occasional  excursus,  and  intro- 
duced irrelevant  material  into  the  consideration  of 
a  given  topic,  as  if  from  sheer  inability  to  limit  him- 
self to  that  which  is  pertinent,  the  modern  method- 
ically extends  his  treatment  over  a  larger  area  of 
territory  for  the  sake  of  thoroughness.  Except  in 
extremely  technical  and  special  works  one  is  not 
surprised  to  find  the  whole  realm  of  knowledge 
made  tributary  to  the  elucidation  of  a  comparatively 
narrow  subject.  And  this  not  in  the  way  of  digres- 
sion, but  integrally  woven  into  the  texture  of  the 
writing.  The  ancient  writer  was  more  limited  in  his 
range.  He  went  out  of  his  way  less  frequently  to 
bring  from  other  spheres  light  on  his  special  task. 
Hence  his  silence  may  more  frequently  be  due  to 
the  irrelevancy  of  what  he  may  have  very  well 
known  ;  or  to  what  he  considered  its  irrelevancy, 
whether  it  were  really  such  or  not.  The  second 
condition  to  be  met  therefore,  before  the  antecedent 
probability  that  a  writer  would  have  mentioned 
what  has  occurred,  if  he  had  known  it,  is  relevancy 
to  the  subject  of  which  he  is  treating. 

3.  The  third  condition  for  the  establishment  of 
this  antecedent  probability  is  absence  of  sufficient 
reason  for  designed  or  intentional 

•i  ixr       t.  1         j  1      j          3-  Absence  of 

silence.     We  have  already  remarked    motive  to  sup- 

i          •  •!  ,    .         .,  press. 

that  it  is  possible  to  explain  silence  as 
intentional.     For  reasons  good  and  sufficient  to  his 
own  mind,  whether  sufficient  for  others  or  not,  an 
author  may  see  fit   to  suppress   many  items   that 
would  be  both  pertinent  and  important.     He  may 


84  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

deem  it  wise  to  ignore  men,  facts,  and  institutions, 
because  the  mention  of  them,  looked  at  from  his 
point  of  view,  or  from  that  of  his  aim,  might  inter- 
fere with  the  usefulness  of  his  work.  It  is  on  the 
ground  of  reasons  similar  to  these  that  statesmen  at 
the  head  of  affairs  withhold  much  important  knowl- 
edge from  legislative  bodies  to  which,  however, 
they  hold  themselves  responsible  for  their  whole 
conduct,  including  the  sufficiency  of  the  grounds 
for  which  they  keep  back  such  information  for  a 
time.  Such  reasons  for  the  suppression  of  knowl- 
edge possessed  by  an  author,  it  would  be  difficult 
under  ordinary  circumstances  to  discover  ;  but  by  as 
much  as  the  critic  approaches  the  standpoint  of  the 
author,  by  so  much  does  he  become  the  more  com- 
petent to  penetrate  into  his  intention  and  discover 
the  reasons  that  have  actuated  him.  On  this  as- 
sumption— and  it  is  a  fair  one  to  make,  for,  after  all, 
the  critic's  whole  work  is  to  come  as  near  as  possi- 
ble to  the  position  of  the  author,  and  realize  his 
motives  as  well  as  the  outward  situation  within 
which  he  labored — it  has  often  been  attempted  to 
explain  the  silence  of  authors  in  this  way,  when  it 
could  be  explained  reasonably  in  no  other  way. 
Several  pertinent  instances  are  given 

Illustrations. 

by  Professor  Briggs  in  a  paper  on  the 
subject  in  the  Journal  of  the  Society  of  Biblical 
Literature  and  Exegesis*  among  which  are  the 
argument  of  Warburton,f  for  the  silence  of  Moses 
regarding  a  future  life  ;  and  Archbishop  Whately's 

*  1883,  pp.  6,  7. 

•   \Divine  Legation  of  Moses   Vindicated,  Lond.,  1837,  vol.  ii. 
P.  531. 


THE    METHODS    OF    THE  .HIGHER   CRITICISM.        85 

argument  from  the  silence  of  the  New  Testament 
regarding  precise  forms  of  church  polity  and  modes 
of  worship.*  It  may  be  set  down  then  as  a  third 
condition  of  establishing  a  strong  antecedent  prob- 
ability of  an  author's  not  using  information  pos- 
sessed by  him. 

The  second  application  of  the  argument  e  silentio 
is  illustrated  in  the  processes  of  investigation  re- 
garding the  canon.  It  consists  in  ex-  New  Testa. 
amining  the  literature  posterior  to  the  ment  Canon- 
alleged  date  of  a  writing,  and  if  there  be  discovered 
a  considerable  silence  concerning  it,  reasoning  to  its 
non-existence  until  after  the  works  which  are  silent 
regarding  it.  This  is  the  application  made  of  it  by 
Richard  Bentley  in  his  investigation  of  the  origin 
of  the  Epistles  of  Phalaris.  He  argues  as  follows  : 
"  Had  our  letters  been  used  or  transcribed  during 
that  thousand  years,  somebody  would  have  spoken 
of  it,  especially  since  so  many  of  the  ancients  had 
occasion  to  do  so  ;  so  that  their  silence  is  a  direct 
argument  that  they  never  had  heard  of  them/'f 
Similarly,  in  attempting  to  ascertain  the  date  of  the 
Pseudo-Isidorian  Decretals,  church  historians  very 
commonly  resort  to  this  argument.  In  Pseudo.lsi. 
Their  reasoning  generally  takes  this  dorian  Decretals. 
form :  These  Decretals  were  first  used  in  the 
middle  of  the  ninth  century  ;  if  they  had  been 
known  previously,  they  would  have  been  appealed 
to  by  the  partizans  of  the  ideas  inculcated  in 

*  Essays  on  Some  of  the  Peculiarities  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
5th  ed.,  Lond.,  1846,  essay  vii. ;  and  Kingdom  of  Christ ,  New 
York,  1859,  P-  28  seq. 

\Epistles  of  Phalaris,  Lond.  (?),  New  ed.,  1883,  p.  481. 


86  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

them.*  And  Du  Pin  f  argues  for  the  age  of  ecclesi- 
astical writing:  "Secondly  from  the  testimony  or 
silence  of  ancient  authors  ;  from  their  testimony,  I 
say,  when  they  formally  reject  a  writing  as  spurious, 
or  when  they  attribute  it  to  some  other  author  ;  or 
from  their  silence  when  they  do  not  speak  of  it, 
though  they  have  occasion  to  mention  it.  This 
argument,  which  is  commonly  called  a  negative  one, 
is  oftentimes  of  great  weight.  When,  for  example, 
we  find  that  several  entire  books  which  are  attrib- 
uted to  one  of  the  ancients  are  unknown  to  all 
antiquity.  When  all  those  persons  who  have  spoken 
of  the  works  of  an  author,  and  besides  have  made 
catalogues  of  them,  never  mention  such  a  particular 
discourse.  When  a  book  that  would  have  been  serv- 
iceable to  the  Catholics  has  never  been  cited  by 
them,  who  both  might  and  ought  to  have  cited  it, 
as  having  fair  occasion  to,  'tis  extremely  probable 
that  it  is  supposititious.  It  is  very  certain  that 
this  is  enough  to  make  any  book  doubtful,  if  it  was 
never  cited  by  any  of  the  ancients  ;  and  in  that  case 
it  must  have  very  authentic  characters  of  antiquity, 
before  it  ought  to  be  received  without  contradiction. 
And  on  the  other  hand,  if  there  should  be  never  so 
many  conjectures  of  its  being  genuine,  yet  these, 
together  with  the  silence  of  the  ancients,  will  be 
sufficient  to  oblige  us  to  believe  it  to  be  a  forgery."  J 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  all  these  illustrations  the 

*Cf.  Schaff,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  iv.  p.  272. 

f  Quoted  by  Professor  Briggs  in  Paper  in  the  Journal  of  the 
Society  of  Biblical  Literature  and  Exegesis,  1883,  p.  9. 

\  Du  Pin,  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  Paris,  1694  ;  Lond.,  1696, 
p.  viii. 


THE   METHODS   OF   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.        87 

conditions  on  which  this  application  may  be  made 
safely  are  either  clearly  or  implicitly  met.  These 
conditions  are  the  same  as  those  on  which  the  first 
application  of  the  argument  from  silence  was  seen 
to  be  permissible.  They  are  summed  up  in  the 
brief  phrase  "occasion  to  mention,"  in  Du  Pin's 
statement  of  the  case.  This  phrase,  of  course,  im- 
plies the  importance  and  pertinency  of  the  matters 
whose  mention  is  expected,  and  the  absence  of  any 
valid  reason  why  they  should  not  be  mentioned. 

But  in  addition  to  these  conditions  there  is  found 
here  a  new  and  fourth  condition;  that  is  to  say,  the 
universality  or  absoluteness  of  the  ,  universality 
silence  that  is  used  as  an  argument.  °'silence- 
The  writings  that  claim  to  be  those  of  the  ancient 
Fathers  are  never  mentioned  by  the  very  terms  of 
Du  Pin's  principle.  The  Pseudo-Isidorian  Decretals 
are  first  met  with  in  the  middle  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, never  before.  No  one  mentions  the  Epistles 
of  Phalaris.  A  single  genuine  mention  would  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  be  a  break  on  the  silence, 
thus  destroying  its  very  essence. 

3.  The  third  application  of  the  argument  from 
silence  is  more  intricate  and  only  indirectly  useful 
in  the  Higher  Criticism.  It  consists  Third  appiica- 
in  arguing  from  the  silence  of  writings,  tion  exPlained- 
whose  date  is  assumed  as  approximately  fixed,  re- 
garding alleged  events  or  institutions  coming  down 
from  preceding  periods  to  the  non-existence  of 
these  events  or  institutions.  On  this  basis  the 
history  and  historical  setting  are  made  the  subjects 
of  reconstruction.  This,  as  will  be  seen  at  a  glance, 
is  the  reverse  of  the  first  application.  In  that  the 


88  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

silence  of  documents  regarding  events  was  used  as 
a  foundation  for  the  conclusion  that  these  writings 
did  not  originate  until  after  the  events  of  which 
they  are  silent;  for  if  they  had,  they  would  have 
exhibited  a  knowledge  of  those  events.  In  this  case, 
assuming  that  the  writings  do  proceed  from  given 
historical  settings,  the  argument  goes  on  to  the 
conclusion  that  those  historical  settings  were 
devoid  of  certain  characteristics  or  facts;  for  if 
they  were  not,  these  would  have  appeared  in  the 
writings. 

To  illustrate  the  strength  and  weakness  of  this 

application,  and  more  especially  the  way  in  which 

it  is  made,  let  us  cite  an  actual  case 

Illustration.         , 

from  the  course  of  the  history  of 
the  Higher  Criticism  in  the  Old  Testament. 

From  the  silence  of  the  periods  of  Samuel  and  the 
Kings  regarding  the  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  law,  or 

certain  parts  of  that  law  known  as  the 

Silence  re-  .  . 

garding  Mosaic    Priests  Code,  it  is  reasoned  that  the 

ritual.  .   .  , 

provisions  of  this  code  were  unknown 
at  the  time;  hence  they  were  not  in  existence;  for 
they  must  have  been  known  if  they  existed;  hence 
the  books  commonly  ascribed  to  Moses, — the  Penta- 
teuch,— in  which  alone  we  have  a  record  of  the 
alleged  origin  of  the  Priests'  Code,  were  not  in 
existence  at  the  time  of  Samuel  and  the  Kings. 
To  give  the  full  force  of  this  specific  case,  however, 
it  must  be  added  that  the  actual  conduct  of  Samuel 
in  offering  sacrifice  in  utter  disregard,  and  what  we 
may  denominate  contravention,  of  the  legislation  of 
Moses  regarding  sacrifices,  seems  to  harmonize 
with  and  bear  out  the  silence  of  the  rest  of  the 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.        89 

literature  of  the  period  on  the  subject.  The  force 
of  these  additional  considerations  depends,  of 
course,  on  the  answer  to  the  question  whether 
Samuel  was  a  mere  executive  of  the  Mosaic  law  or 
even  an  individual  subject  to  that  law,  or  some- 
thing more.  The  records  leave  no  room  for  debate 
on  this  question.  Samuel's  position  was  that  of  the 
legislator  as  well  as  executive.  He  had  direct 
prophetic  powers  and  functions;  and  by  virtue  of 
these,  even  though  we  should  assume  that  the  law 
was  in  observance,  it  would  not  follow  that  he  must 
follow  its  prescriptions  in  every  detail.  He  might 
set  it  aside  for  special  reasons.  His  known  stand- 
ing and  prophetic  function  would  naturally  explain 
his  departure  from  the  ordinary  and  regular  course 
as  an  exception  made  under  divine  guidance.  If 
we  now  attempt  to  estimate  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment from  silence  without  the  additional  force  de- 
rived from  the  apparent  transgression  of  the  code 
by  the  prophet,  we  would  find  that  it  is  of  the  nature 
of  the  chain;  and  it  is  as  strong  as  its  weakest  link. 
It  might  be  analyzed  as  follows:  If  the  Mosaic 
books  had  been  in  existence,  the  Mosaic  legislation 
contained  in  them  must  have  been  known;  if  the 
Mosaic  legislation  had  been  known,  it  must  have 
been  observed;  if  observed,  its  observance  must 
have  been  recorded.  Taking  this  chain  in  the 
reverse  order  to  that  in  which  it  is  given,  we  may 
notice  that  the  last  link  is  quite  inference 
strong.  If  the  Mosaic  legislation  were  drawn  from  "• 
observed  during  the  period  in  question  a  record  of 
its  observance,  or  at  least  traces  of  the  same,  must 
have  been  left.  Though  not  absolutely  certain, 


90  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

this  conclusion  may  be  allowed  to  stand.  The 
next  link,  however,  presents  us  with  a  weaker  prob- 
ability. It  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  the 
legislation  must  have  been  observed,  if  known.  In 
times  such  as  those  of  Samuel  the  law  might,  and 
naturally  would,  have  been  kept  in  abeyance.  The 
probability  of  this  is  made  much  stronger  by  a  sur- 
vey of  the  subsequent  history.  Over  and  over 
again  in  the  later  period  this  same  legislation  fell 
into  disuse  on  account  of  circumstances  that  made 
it  impossible  to  observe  it.  As  we  go  a  step  further 
back  and  examine  the  next  antecedent  link  in  the 
chain,  we  find  it  weaker  still.  The  Mosaic  books 
might  certainly  have  been  in  existence  without 
leading  to  the  knowledge  of  and  observance  of  the 
law  regarding  sacrifices.  That  a  body  of  laws 
should  fall  into  disuse,  and  therefore  oblivion,  is 
not  impossible  or  improbable.  Any  legislation  of  a 
highly. developed  character,  given  to  a  rude  people 
which  is  hardly  ready  to  receive  it  and  obey  it 
ideally,  must  suffer  lapse  and  comparative  neglect, 
though  not  always  permanent  oblivion.  It  may 
well  have  happened,  therefore,  that  while  the 
Pentateuch  was  still  in  existence  the  legislation 
contained  in  it  had  passed  out  of  any  considerable 
knowledge  by  the  public.  Thus,  this  applica- 
But  not  legit-  tion  of  the  argument,  though  not 
imateiy.  illicit,  nor  useless  altogether,  is  apt  to 

prove  of  little  value  practically,  on  account  of  the 
intricacy  of  the  process  it  requires  and  the  tempta- 
tion to  introduce  a  weak  link  into  the  chain 
it  involves — a  temptation  which,  even  with  the 
utmost  care,  it  would  be  hard  not  to  fall  into 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.        9! 

unawares.  Even  after  centuries  of  use  and  ap- 
proximate perfect  observance  of  the  law,  we  find 
violations  of  it  recorded  calmly,  without  the  least 
suspicion  of  their  needing  explanation.  Thus, 
according  to  Josephus,*  Aristobulus  is  made  high- 
priest  at  the  age  of  seventeen.  The  strict  applica- 
tion of  the  argument  from  silence  would  lead 
from  this  fact  to  the  inference  that  the  law  was 
unknown  at  the  time,  therefore  that  it  was  not  in 
existence. 

To  show  that  it  is  possible  for  a  legislation  of 
considerable  proportions  to  be  given  and  exist  for 
a  long  period  without  leaving  traces 

,  .    ,     .  A  parallel. 

of  itself  in  the  history  along  which  it 
exists  unheeded,  the  following  parallel  from  the 
history  of  France  may  be  cited.  Sir  J.  Stephen, 
in  his  Lectures  on  the  History  of  France,  has  the 
following  passage:  "When  the  barbarism  of  the 
domestic  government  (under  the  Carlovingian 
dynasty)  had  thus  succeeded  the  barbarism  of  the 
government  of  the  state,  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able results  of  that  political  change  was  the  dis- 
appearance of  the  laws  and  institutions  by  which 
Charlemagne  had  endeavored  to  elevate  and  civi- 
lize his  subjects.  Before  the  close  of  the  century 
in  which  he  died  the  whole  body  of  his  laws  had 
fallen  into  utter  disuse  throughout  the  whole  extent 
of  his  Gallic  dominions.  They  who.  have  studied 
the  charters,  laws,  and  chronicles  of  the  later  Car- 
lovingian princes  most  diligently  .are  unanimous 
in  declaring  that  they  indicate  either  an  absolute 
ignorance  or  an  entire  forgetfulness  of  the  legisla- 
*  Antiquities •,  XV.  iii.  I  seq. 


92  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

tion  of  Charlemagne."*  This  case  demonstrates, 
from  a  field  in  which  scientific  investigation  can 
reach  demonstration,  the  possibility  of  the  lapse 
of  a  great  legislation  in  such  a  manner  that  all 
observance  of  it,  and  even  all  knowledge  of  it, 
seems  to  disappear  for  a  long  period  of  time.  It 
does  more  than  this;  it  suggests  that  under  given 
conditions  it  is  more  natural  to  expect  the  relapse 
and  disappearance  of  institutions  in  such  a  way  that 
the  silence  of  the  immediately  following  literature 
regarding  them  is  a  result  needing  no  farther 
explanation,  when  these  conditions  are  known. 

Taking  the  proved  lapse  of  the  Carlovingian  legis- 
lation and  the  silence  which   follows  it,   and   the 
Lessons  of  the  alleged  lapse  of  the  Mosaic  legislation 
parallel.  with  the  silence  and  ignorance  of  the 

ages  of  the  Judges  and  of  Samuel,  regarding  it  as 
the  basis  for  an  inductive  study  of  these  conditions, 
we  may  posit  the  following  to  be  some  of  them:  i. 
A  people  in  its  infancy.  The  Franks  before  and 
during  the  time  of  Charlemagne,  and  the  Hebrews 
before  and  during  the  time  of  Moses,  were  nearly 
in  the  same  stage  as  far  as  development  of  civiliza- 
tion was  concerned.  Setting  aside  such  differences 
as  grow  out  of  climatic  and  temperamental  char- 
acter, the  two  peoples  were  very  much  in  the  same 
stage  of  growth.  They  were  both  in  a  primitive 
and  rude  state  of  civilization.  2.  A  great  leader. 
Charlemagne  and  Moses  were  both  above  their  con- 
stituencies ;  they  were  both  in  advance  of  their 
respective  ages.  Setting  aside  again  the  differences 
between  them  as  regards  previous  training,  source 
*  Lectures  on  the  History  of  France,  lect.  iv.  p.  94. 


THE    METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.        93 

of  power,  wisdom,  inspiration,  etc.,  the  men,  and 
their  relations  to  the  times  and  the  peoples  among 
whom  they  lived,  were  very  much  alike.  Their 
peculiarities  as  leaders  were  the  same  :  they  were 
comprehensive  in  their  view  of  the  functions  of  their 
offices  ;  they  were  organizers,  generals,  literary 
leaders,  religious  leaders,  and  above  all  legislators. 
3.  As  a  result  from  the  two  conditions  already 
named,  we  have,  relatively  speaking,  an  ideal  code 
of  laws.  In  both  cases  the  legislation  was  meant 
not  only  to  regulate  the  national  life,  but  also  to 
elevate  and  refine  it.  And  the  standard  which  it 
set  up  was  far  too  high  to  be  realized  at  once.  The 
capacity  of  the  peoples  to  appreciate  it  was  too  re- 
stricted. As  long  as  the  mind  that  had  put  forth 
the  code  was  present  to  guide  in  its  enforcement, 
it  might  move  on  smoothly,  though  from  the  records 
of  the  practical  application  of  the  Mosaic  system, 
at  least,  it  appears  that  the  presence  of  Moses  was 
deemed  indispensable  ;  and  even  a  few  days'  absence 
was  apt  to  interfere  with  the  smooth  running  of  the 
order  he  had  established.  But  as  soon  as  the  mind 
which  sees  this  legislation  in  its  entirety,  and  appre- 
hends at  its  true  value  the  good  that  is  to  result 
from  its  realization,  has  passed  out  of  the  sphere  of 
its  operation,  the  ^legislation  must  fall  into  disuse 
and  obsolescence.  Under  these  conditions  what 
else  could  be  expected  ?  But  if  these  conclusions 
are  correct,  it  follows  that  the  use  of  the  argument 
from  silence  must  be  made  with  additional  care,* 

*  The  argument  from  silence  is  discussed  here  exclusively  from 
the  point  of  view  of  its  application  to  questions  of  literary  char- 
acter, such  as  have  been  enumerated  in  chapter  ii.  It  is  needless 


94  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

when  applied  to  the  reconstruction  of  history,  as  a 
step  preparatory  to  the  settlement  of  the  questions 
of  literary  origin  and  nature. 

4.  The  fourth  form  of  the  Historical  Argument 

may  be  designated  in  general  the  Argument  from 

Concinnity.     And  it  may  be  used  in 

4.    Argument  . 

from     concin-    one  of  two  ways,  i.  e.,  either  destruc- 

nity.  .  .       ,  .    .     _ 

tively  or  constructively.      (i)  In   its 
CO  simple        simplest  form  this  consists  in  drawing 

form.    Lack  of  ,  .      .  , 

it.  inferences  from  confusion  or  disorder 

in  a  literary  production.  If  two  events  are  put  in 
the  opposite  sequence  from  that  in  which  they 
occurred,  it  is  an  evidence  that  the  author  of  the 
book  in  which  they  are  so  put  was  either  misin- 
formed, or  that  he  had  some  sinister  purpose  in 
transposing  their  true  order.  His  trustworthiness 
as  a  historian  is  thus  at  once  brought  into  question. 
Thus  also  all  contradictions,  discrep- 

Confused  writ- 
ings,     untrust-  ancies,    repetitions,   and  parallel    ac- 

worthy. 

counts  are  taken  as  evidences  of  im- 
perfect work.  This  argument  is  also  valid,  and 
may  be  used  first  in  stripping  a  writing  of  its  mere- 
tricious value  and  determining  its  true  value,  and, 
second,  in  deciding  the  question  of  integrity.  For 
the  first  of  these  uses  contradictions  and  discrep- 
ancies, whenever  distinctly  proved,  are  very  use- 
ful grounds  of  reasoning.  The  presumption  is  that 
an  author  who  is  well-informed  on  the  topic  of 
which  he  is  treating  will  not  give  an  account  of 
it  contradictory  to  another  he  has  already  given. 

to  say  that  the  treatment  of  it  must  have  been  entirely  different 
considered  from  the  point  of  view  of  its  application  in  the  broader 
field  of  historic  investigation. 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.        95 

Whenever  he  does  this  he  shows  that  his  informa- 
tion is  either  not  well  grounded,  or  that  it  is  not 
well  digested  by  him,  and  in  either  case  his  testi- 
mony cannot  be  taken  at  its  prima  facie  value,  but 
must  be  sifted  and  tested.  Confusions  are  thus 
negative  evidences  ;  they  serve  to  indicate  what  a 
writing  is  not,  /.  <?.,  absolutely  trustworthy.  In 
order  to  base  this  conclusion  on  a  proved  case  of 
confusion,  it  must  be  shown  that  it  is  not  account- 
able in  some  other  way,  as  for  instance,  from  the 
desire  of  the  writer  to  substitute  a  different  order 
from  that  expected  by  the  critic  ;  in  such  a  case 
the  apparent  confusion  vanishes  on  closer  examina- 
tion. In  other  words  there  is  no  confusion  left  to 
argue  from.  In  a  work  of  history,  for  instance,  the 
chronological  order  may  be  set  aside  by  a  historian 
for  a  logical  order  of  grouping  his  material.  As 
soon  as  this  is  made  evident,  no  inference  can  be 
drawn  from  the  apparent  confusion  of  his  work. 

But  secondly,  this  argument  may  be  used  in 
throwing  light  on  the  unity  or  integrity  of  a  writing. 
Upon  certain  conditions  it  is  fair  to 
infer  that  the  contradictions,  discrep-  shows  lack  of 
ancies,  or  confusions  found  to  exist  in 
a  writing  are  the  result  of  the  blending  of  the  work 
of  more  than  one  author  in  the  writing.  Again,  the 
critic  reverts  here  to  the  presumption  that  a  writer 
will  not  contradict  himself  ;  if,  therefore,  he  finds 
this  taking  place  in  a  work  purporting  to  be  the 
product  of  one  person's  activity,  he  will  examine 
with  care  whether  the  alleged  unity  of  the  writing 
is  not  artificial  rather  than  natural.  If  these  con- 
tradictions are  found  in  passages  which  are  appar- 


96  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

ently  duplicates  of  one  another,  if  they  show  marks 
of  differences  in  style,  the  suspicion  will  be 
strengthened  that  they  are  due  to  the  combination 
of  two  originally  separate  documents. 

The  difficulty  in  using  this  process  of  reasoning 

arises  in  distinguishing  between  such  repetitions  as 

may  be  made  in  any  writing  for  the 

Caution  needed.  ' 

sake  of  clearly  presenting  a  subject, 
and  such  as  are  due  to  the  process  of  compilation. 
There  are  the  minor  repetitions  not  uncommon  in 
any  literary  work,  and  the  larger  repetitions  that 
require  a  different  explanation.  Josephus  repeats  a 
part  of  his  account  of  the.  Jewish  War  in  his  Biogra- 
phy, and  a  part  of  his  Antiquities  in  the  Treatise  against 
Apion.  But  no  one  has  ever  thought  of  ascribing 
these  repetitious  passages  to  other  authors,  because 
the  apparent  object  of  the  different  writings  explains 
the  occurrence  of  the  material  repeated.  So  also 
the  putting  of  the  same  thought  in  a  slightly  dif- 
ferent expression  is  not  an  uncommon  resort  of 
writers  whenever  they  wish  to  enlarge  and  intensify 
the  impression  that  may  be  but  slight  with  a  first 
and  single  statement.  Such  repetitions  need  not  be 
further  pressed  by  the  critic  ;  their  meaning  has 
been  exhausted  when  it  has  been  discovered  that 
they  accomplish  the  above  named  purpose.* 

*  Writing  in  The  Forum,  Mr.  W.  H.  H.  Lecky  says  that, 
without  disputing  the  value  of  the  work  of  German  and  Dutch 
scholars  in  dealing  with  the  early  Jewish  writings,  "  I  may  be 
pardoned  for  expressing  my  belief  that  this  kind  of  investigation 
is  often  pursued  with  an  exaggerated  confidence.  Plausible  con- 
jecture is  too  frequently  mistaken  for  positive  proof.  Undue 
significance  is  attached  to  what  may  be  mere  casual  coincidences, 
and  a  minuteness  of  accuracy  is  professed  in  discriminating  be- 


THE    METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.        97 

To  sum  up  then  briefly;  the  first  form  of  the 
application  of  the  argument  from  concinnity  is  the 
negative  form,  the  use  of  the  absence 

•  mi  •  Summary. 

or  lack  of  it.  This  lack  may  show 
itself  as  (a)  confusion,  (b)  repetition,  (c)  variation. 
Each  of  these  phenomena  may  again  have  its 
varieties.  Confusion  may  be  slight  or  serious.  Its 
meaning  will  vary  accordingly.  If  slight,  it  may  be 
ascribed  to  the  temperament  of  the  author;  if  con- 
siderable, to  his  incompetency  as  witness  or  authority 
in  the  matters  treated  of.  Repetition  may  be  for 
the  sake  of  clearness,  fulness,  or  emphasis;  or  as 
a  result  of  compilation.  Variation  may  be  due  to 
change  of  point  of  view  by  the  same  author  or  to 
difference  of  authorship.  These  phenomena  may 
occur  singly  or  combined.  When  occurring  singly 
their  significance  is  slighter,  and  they  may  be  ade- 
quately explained  on  the  ground  of  the  subordinate 
causes  above  given  for  each.  When  appearing  in 
combination  with  one  another,  they  are  more  natu- 
rally to  be  taken  as  indications  of  the  more  important 
causes. 

(2)  The  constructive  use  of  the  argument  from 
concinnity  consists  in  the  discovery  not  of  defects 
in  the  actual  order,  but  in  the  dis- 

(a)    Recon- 

covery  of  possible  order  where  there    structive  forms 

,  -  explained. 

is    only   apparent    confusion.       It    is 

virtually  the  establishment  of  a  center  or  starting- 

tween  the  different  elements  in  a  narrative  which  cannot  be  at- 
tained by  mere  internal  evidence.  In  all  writings,  but  especially 
in  the  writings  of  an  age  when  criticism  was  unknown,  there  will  be 
repetitions,  contradictions,  inconsistencies,  and  diversities  of  style, 
which  do  not  necessarily  indicate  different  authorship  or  dates." 


98  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

point,  and  the  successful  grouping  about  that 
center  of  the  confused  material;  or  the  tracing  out 
of  a  consistent  whole,  beginning  at  the  starting 
point.  If  this  can  be  done,  a  presumption  is  created 
that  that  was  the  original  order  and  that  departure 
from  it  is  due  to  the  disturbing  influence  of  time, 
accident,  and  ignorance  or  incapacity  in  handling 
this  original  order.  The  process  of  reasoning  is 
used  in  other  branches  of  investigation,  and  with 
satisfactory  results.  In  paleontology,  if  an  inves- 
tigator were  to  unearth  a  group  of  bones,  he  would 
fit  them  into  one  another  after  the  analogy  of 
the  skeleton  of  some  type  of  animal  known  to  him; 
and  if  the  .result  of  this  work  were  a  complete 
whole,  he  would  reason  naturally  and  properly  that 
he  had  succeeded  in  reconstructing 
the  skeleton  of  the  extinct  animal  in 
its  original  form.  The  fact  that  the  parts  seemed 
to  fit  into  one  another  would  be  in  itself  a  strong 
evidence  of  the  naturalness,  and  therefore  of  the 
originality,  of  the  arrangement.  In  archeology,  if 
a  group  of  fragments  were  to  be  brought  to  the 
expert,  he  would  attempt  to  put  piece  into  piece;  and 
if  he  managed  by  so  doing  to  get  a  vase  or  statue  or 
bas-relief,  he  would  be  justified  in  inferring  that  he 
had  the  original  order  of  the  fragments.  The  same 
process  could  be  pursued  in  history.  It  has  actually 
been  pursued  in  the  recovery  of  the  lost  histories 
of  Oriental  nations,  especially  those  of  the  Mesopo- 
tamian  valley.  When  the  heaps  of  inscriptions 
found  in  that  valley  were  first  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  European  scholars,  the  first  step  in  making 
use  of  them  was  their  arrangement  in  some  order. 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.        99 

In  the  very  process  of  deciphering  the  earliest  found 
inscriptions  the  argument  from  the  consistency  of 
the  conjectures  regarding  the  arrangement  of  the 
letters  proved  a  strong  help  in  reaching  sure  results; 
and  similarly,  in  the  later  stages,  the  fitting  of  the 
records  into  one  another,  and  their  agreement  with 
a  natural  chronological  scheme,  were  a  strong  ground 
for  believing  that  their  true  order  had  been  dis- 
covered. 

These  analogies  not  only  furnish  a  ground  of  con- 
fidence in  the  argument  from  concinnity  and  the 
results  that  may  be  attained  by  its 

Conditions : 

application,    but  also    give    us   some     (a)    Apparent 

disorder. 

hints  as  to  the  conditions  under  which 
the  argument  can  be  used  with  safety.  These 
conditions  are  :  (a)  The  existence  of  apparent 
disorder.  The  investigator  in  paleontology  ap- 
proaches a  heap  of  bones  with  the  conviction  that, 
as  a  heap,  it  is  certainly  not  in  its  primitive  and 
natural  order.  So  also  the  archeologian  and  his- 
torian are  certain  at  the  first  glance  that  they  are 
in  possession  of  materials  that  have  been  dislocated 
and  thrown  together  in  some  other  than  their 
original  form.  This  dislocation  may  not  be  indeed 
a  matter  of  certainty;  it  may  merely  be  suspected 
that  it  exists;  but,  at  any  rate,  to  go  to  any  body  of 
materials  expecting  to  rearrange  them,  whether 
they  are  in  actual  disorder  or  not,  is  to  approach 
the  subject  in  a  wanton  and  not  in  a  serious  spirit. 
As  a  first  condition  before  undertaking  a  serious 
attempt  at  reconstruction,  the  critic  should  assure 
himself  that  the  order  in  which  he  finds  his  materials 
is  not  the  original  one;  that  it  is  at  least  not  reason- 


100  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

able  to  so  consider  it.  In  the  cases  cited  as  analo- 
gies, from  the  nature  of  the  case  this  part  of  the  work 
would  be  simple  and  could  not  detain  the  investi- 
gator very  long.  In  historical  and  literary  investi- 
gations this  is  not  as  easy  a  process.  Literary 
sources  of  history  come  to  us  always  in  some 
plausible  order,  and  it  must  be  established  that  this 
•  order  is  either  impossible  or  at  any  rate  attended 
with  serious  difficulties,  (b)  But  secondly,,  another 
condition  for  the  right  use  of  this  argument  is  the 
proof  that  the  order  which  is  proposed 

(b)  Order  pro-     J 

posed :  Reason-    as  a  substitute  for  the  disorder  is  a 

able. 

reasonable  one.  The  analogies  would, 
in  fact,  lead  further  and  compel  us,  if  we  were  to  press 
them  closely,  to  say  that  the  order  proposed  must  be 
the  only  order  possible.  And  in  order  to  produce 
the  impression  of  certainty  and  compel  universal 
assent,  such  a  reconstruction,  on  the  basis  of  the 
argument  from  concinnity,  must  show  the  facts  in 
the  only  possible  order.  By  as  much  as  it  comes 
short  of  this,  it  is  apt  to  be  controverted  and  dis- 
puted. This  may  be  a  hard  condition  to  fulfil;  and 
yet  the  compliance  required  to  it  is  a  practical  one, 
not  mathematical.  As  in  all  other  cases  of  reason- 
ing, here  also  what  is  aimed  at  as  an  ideal  may  not 
be  attained  in  practice,  except  in  very  rare  cases. 
And  after  all,  wherever  there  is  doubt  in  the  ap- 
plication of  the  argument,  it  must  be  a  matter  of 
comparative  rather  than  of  absolute  certainty.  In 
other  words,  if  a  new  way  of  arranging  materials 
removes  all  difficulties  that  seem  to  attend  an  old 
order  and  offers  no  difficulties  of  its  own;  if  it  is  so 
far  superior  as  to  be  in  comparison  with  the  old  a 


THE    METHODS    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.       IOI 

real  and   not  an   artificial   one,    it    is   to  be   pre- 
ferred. 

All  that  has  been  said  thus  far  applies  directly  to 
attempts  at  complete  restoration  on  the  assumption 
that  what  is  to  be  restored  has  been  Partial  use  of 
completely  disarranged.  The  princi-  concinnity- 
pies  on  which  the  argument  is  based  may  be,  how- 
ever, applied  to  partial  disarrangement  with  the 
intent  of  restoring  what  has  been  put  out  of  its 
natural  order.  The  results  that  may  be  reached  in 
such  cases  are  the  more  certain  because,  in  attaining 
them,  the  parts  which  are  disarranged  serve  to  in- 
dicate the  general  outline  of  the  whole  and  enable 
the  investigator  to  make  his  reconstruction  with 
confidence.  In  this  field,  accordingly,  some  of  the 
most  trustworthy  results  of  the  application  of  this 
method  have  been  obtained.  The  books  of  Isaiah 
and  Jeremiah  furnish  illustrations  of  the  historical 
rearrangement  of  discourses  delivered  and  put  in 
other  than  their  historical  order.  But  these  results 
also  vindicate  the  validity  and  value  of  this  method. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  METHODS  OF  THE  HIGHER 'CRITICISM    (Concluded]. 

III.    The  Argument  from  the  Content  of 
Thought. 

THIS  method  is  sometimes  called  the  "  theological 
argument";  it  is  so  called  when  used  in  the  exam- 
ination of  literary  works  which,  like 

III.  The  Theo- 
logical     Argu-  the  books  of  the  Bible,  are  sources  of 

ment. 

theology,  or  contain  theological  mate- 
rial. As  used  in  any  other  connection,  or  with 
reference  to  any  other  class  of  books,  the  argument 
should  be  more  properly  called  the  argument  from 
the  content  of  thought.  It  differs  from  the  literary 
argument  in  dealing  with  the  content  rather  than 
the  form  of  literary  productions,  and  from  the 
historical  argument  in  taking  account  and  using  as 
a  basis  of  operations,  not  the  historical  setting  and 
its  correspondence  or  non-correspondence  with  the 
historic  content  in  the  books,  but  the  subject  matter 
of  the  books  as  especially  reflecting  directly  or 
indirectly  the  system  of  thought  of  the  authors. 
This  content  of  thought  may  (i)  reveal  the  indi- 
viduality of  the  author;  in  such  a  case 

Its  two  forms.  . 

the  use  made  of  it  is  analogous  to  the 
use  of  considerations  drawn  from  style  and  qualities 
of  expression.  It  may,  however,  (2)  identify  the 
writing  with  a  period  by  its  correspondence  or  lack 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.       103 

of  correspondence  with  the  thought  outside  of  the 
writing,  and  by  its  other  inner  characteristics.  In 
this  case  its  use  is  analogous  with  the  use  already 
described  of  historic  data,  and  it  becomes  in  a  sense 
a  form  of  the  historical  argument.  We  may  examine 
these  two  uses  separately. 

i.  An  author's  thought  is  characteristic  of  him 
just  as  his  style  is.  His  circle  of  knowledge,  his 
meditations  or  speculations,  are  deter-  ,  characteris- 
mined  to  a  large  extent  by  his  char-  «"  of  thought, 
acter,  education,  and  environment.  Taken  all 
together,  they  constitute  a  complex  which,  to  the 
skilled  workman  in  this  department,  is  recognizable 
just  as  the  features  of  his  face  are  to  the  physical 
eye  and  the  character  of  his  style  to  the  literary 
critic.  These  features  evince  themselves  in  every- 
thing to  which  he  gives  expression.  He  may  dis- 
guise his  thoughts  as  he  may  disguise  his  style,  but 
the  presumption  is  that  he  will  not  do  so  without 
sufficient  reason,  and  if  he  should,  it  would  not  be 
impossible  to  strip  him  of  his  disguise  and  discover 
his  identity  in  the  minor  features  of  his  system. 
But  disguise  is  exceptional  and  is  not  to  be  taken 
into  consideration,  except  as  a  last  resort,  when 
other  hypotheses  have  failed  to  solve  the  difficulties 
of  the  situation.  Under  ordinary  circumstances  a 
man  loves  to  dwell  on  a  circle  of  ideas.  They 
become  his  pets,  especially  if  he  has  himself  con- 
ceived them  in  the  first  place,  and  not  borrowed 
them  from  any  one  else.  Or  even  if  he  have  bor- 
rowed, if  he  has  but  given  them  a  new  turn  or 
become  possessed  by  their  living  importance  ;  if 
they  have  become  convictions,  he  loves  them  and 


104  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

broods  over  them,  and  comes  back  to  them.  Every 
man,  moreover,  draws  his  inspiration  from  a  limited 
and  well-defined  sphere;  the  product  of  his  thinking 
is  marked  by  the  tinge  of  the  source  whence  he 
has  derived  it,  just  as  glass  colored  with  certain 
chemicals  always  indicates  their  presence  by  the 
color  it  assumes,  or  porcelain  made  of  clay  from 
one  region  betrays  the  source  of  its  material.  One 
man,  for  instance,  is  a  lover  of  nature  and  a  close 
student  of  it;  it  is  impossible  but  that  his  thoughts 
should  be  full  of  the  beauties  or  suggestiveness  of 
nature.  He  has  made  it  the  starting-point  of  his 
indications  of  thoughts,  and  the  source  of  his  inspi- 
authorship.  ration,  even  in  a  secondary  sense. 
Another  is  introspective;  he  is  accustomed  to  re- 
flect on  the  inner  processes  of  thought  and  feeling. 
He  is  apt  to  show  his  philosophic  tendency  toward 
whatsoever  variety  of  philosophic  thought  he  may 
be  addicted.  Another  is  fond  of  sociological  and 
political  problems,  and  spends  much  time  in  turning 
them  over  in  his  mind;  it  will  come  about  almost 
inevitably  that  his  system  of  thought  will  run  in  the 
molds  of  sociological  or  political  life.  Thus,  in  the 
thoughts  more  strictly  of  religion  and  theology, 
there  arise  different  types.  One  is  accustomed  to 
think  of  the  power,  another  of  the  wisdom,  and 
another  of  the  love  of  God  preeminently.  Each  of 
these  thinkers  is  apt  to  crystallize,  as  about  a  center, 
his  whole  thought  of  God  around  that  attribute 
which  to  him  is  preeminent.  In  fact,  this  same 
unconscious  selection  of  a  center,  and  grouping 
one's  views  of  religion,  takes  place  not  in  the  narrow 
department  of  the  doctrine  of  God  only,  but  through 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.       105 

the  whole  field  of  theology  in  its  broadest  sense. 
No  one  who  has  compared  the  presentation  of  the 
Gospel  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul  with  that  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  or  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in 
the  New  Testament,  or  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah 
with  those  of  Ezekiel  or  Zechariah  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, will  be  tempted  to  question  the  grouping  of 
the  theological  content  of  these  writings  around 
different  centers.  This  necessarily  affects  not  only 
the  position  of  the  details,  but  also 

Illustrations. 

their  significance  on  the  whole.  The 
whole  new  discipline  of  Biblical  theology,  as  a  depart- 
ment of  theological  science,  is  based  upon  the  exist- 
ence of  these  characteristic  differences  and  the  pos- 
sibility of  recognizing  them  and  using  them  as  a 
basis  of  further  constructive  work  in  building  up 
the  systems  of  different  periods,  schools,  individuals, 
or  standpoints  found  within  such  a  collection- of 
books  as  the  Bible.  But  if  these  peculiarities  can 
be  used  in  Biblical  theology,  they  can  be  used  in 
criticism. 

But  in  applying  the  argument  a  difference  is  to 
be  noticed  between  Biblical  theology  and  criticism. 
It  is  one  thing  to  recognize  charac-  Basis  of  Bibii- 
teristic  differences  in  works  whose  calTheol°gy- 
authors  are  already  in  other  ways  known  to  be 
different,  and  another  to  establish  authorship  or 
any  other  point  in  criticism  from  assumed  differ- 
ences or  peculiarities.  Whenever,  therefore,  it  is 
shown  on  the  ground  of  the  use  of  other  processes 
of  argumentation  that  certain  results  are  probable, 
the  reasoning  from  the  content  of  thought,  if  it 
point  to  the  same  results,  will  have  a  corroborative 


106  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

force.  In  other  cases  it  is  limited  in  force  and 
leads  to  uncertain  results.  As  an  original  or  initia- 
tory step  in  procuring  answers  to  the  questions  of 
criticism,  its  value  is  small.  Thus,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  is  used  almost  altogether  in  connection  with 
other  arguments.  In  other  respects  ?lso  the  con- 
ditions on  which  safe  use  can  be  made  of  it  are 
similar  to  those  already  observed  as  requisite  for  the 
application  of  the  literary  argument.  The  causes 
which  produce  variation  in  the  style  of  one  author 
may  produce  variation  in  the  system  of  thought  of 
the  same  author.  It  should  be  made  clear,  there- 
fore, that  such  differences  do  not  arise  from  change 
in  the  point  of  view  of  the  author  due  to  time  or 
surroundings,  to  difference  in  topic  or  occasion,  or 
to  the  employment  of  a  different  assistant  in  the 
composition  of  different  works,  before  the  reasoning 
from  the  difference  of  content  of  thought  can  be 
conceded  its  full  force. 

2.  The  second  form  of  the  argument  now  under 
consideration  is  that  which  may  be  designated  as 
3.  Development  the  argument  from  the  development 
of  thought.  Of  thought.  It  is  perfectly  analogous 
to,  in  fact,  it  rests  on  the  same  principle  as  the 
form  of  argument  we  have  called  the  argument  from 
concinnity  in  speaking  of  the  historical  method.* 
Given  certain  ideas  or  systems  of  ideas — A,  B,  C, 
and  D,  on  the  same  general  subject — they  can  be 
arranged  on  the  ground  of  their  internal  relations  of 
development  from  one  another.  Conversely,  if  they 
are  not  found  in  the  order  in  which  they  can  thus  be 
arranged,  they  are  in  disorder  and  must  be  rear- 
*  See  chap.  iv. 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.       107 

ranged.  A  more  advanced  type  of  thought  is  dis- 
tinguishable from  a  less  advanced  by  certain  marked 
peculiarities,  just  as  a  photograph  of  an  individual 
taken  in  advanced  age  is  readily  distinguishable 
from  one  taken  in  youth  or  manhood.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  arrange  in  their  chronological  order  a 
number  of  such  pictures  of  a  growing  object  taken 
at  the  different  stages  of  its  growth.  If  in  a  series 
of  writings  there  appear  a  regular  order  of  succes- 
sion, the  presumption  is  that  the  order  is  original, 
and  the  writings  must  be  put  in  the  succession  indi- 
cated. If  of  two  documents  that  which  claims  a 
later  date  gives  the  cruder  form  of  a  teaching,  the 
natural  inference  would  be,  upon  this  principle,  that 
the  claim  is  not  valid;  that  the  order  of  the  two 
writings  has  been  somehow  inverted,  and  that  the 
true  order  is  the  reverse  of  the  apparent. 

In  attempting  to  safeguard  this  form  of  the  argu- 
ment and  render  its  application  sure  and  useful  it  is 
to  be  borne  in  mind  that,  while  there  Limitations  of 
is  an  undoubted  law  of  development  argument, 
and  the  different  stages  of  a  developing  object  are 
distinctly  discernible,  yet  this  is  true  of  stages  that 
stand  widely  apart  from  one  another.  Closer  and 
nearer  stages  are  not  as  easily  distinguishable.  It 
would  not  be  easy,  for  instance,  under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances to  mark  or  recognize  the  difference  in 
the  appearance  of  a  grown  man  from  one  month  to 
another  or  from  one  year  to  another.  Growth  need 
not  involve  a  specified  time,  but  it  must  be  consider- 
able before  it  can  be  recognized.  Moreover  growth, 
especially  in  stages  nearer  one  another,  does  not 
always  take  place  in  direct  and  straight  lines.  In 


108  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

fact  it  takes  this  simple  course  only  rarely  and  by 
way  of  exception.  More  usually  the  way  of  develop- 
Deveiopment  ment  is  circuitous  and  complex.  The 
not  uniform.  jjne  of  prOgress  has  been  properly 
compared  to  the  figure  of  the  spiral,  which  returns 
upon  itself  and  rises  higher  in  succeeding  stages. 
While  this  comparison  is  generally  true,  even  this 
figure  cannot  give  an  absolute  and  invariable  rule  to 
be  applied  without  deviation.  History  is  full  of 
sudden,  unexpected,  and  unaccountable  freaks  in 
development.  No  theory  of  evolution  has  thus  far 
succeeded  in  explaining  all  the  actual  phenomena  of 
this  kind.  Men,  systems,  codes,  sometimes  appear 
apart  from  and  seemingly  without  reference  to 
any  regular  line  or  law  of  develop- 

Advanced 

forms:    Early    ment.      Men   are    born    out  of    due 

stages.  . 

time;  they  come  on  the  scene  genera- 
tions, sometimes  centuries,  in  advance  of  the  appar- 
ently natural  place  of  the  ideas  they  advocate. 
They  put  forth  their  thoughts  on  an  unappreciative 
environment;  their  high  ideals  seem  like  exotics 
transplanted  from  some  later  age  into  the  past,  as 
if  some  tropical  plant  had  been  put  back  into  the 
glacial  age.  It  would  manifestly  be  untrue  to  his- 
tory, as  it  would  be  unjust  to  these  men  and  their 
ideas,  to  argue  them  forward  in  history  in  order  to 
make  them  take  their  places  in  a  line  of  develop- 
ment. Large  views  are  often  put  forth  and  have  a 
brief  career  of  glory  and  apparent  appreciation,  and 

then  dwindle  and  pass  away.     A  de- 
Degeneration.  .  .    .   .    f 

generate  generation  may  shrink  from 

the    earlier   and    larger    views    and    fall   back    on 
narrower,  reactionary  views.     It  would  be  untrue 


THE   METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.       109 

to  history  to  call  every  succeeding  period  an 
advance  on  its  predecessor.  The  posterior  is 
evolved  from  the  anterior,  but  often  in  the  way  of 
retrogression.  In  many  cases  the  later  is  an  en- 
folding rather  than  an  unfolding  from  the  earlier. 

These  unevennesses  of  development  in  history, 
going  hand  in  hand  with  the  obvious  general  upward 
spiral  movement,  have  led  men  to  Hegelian 
formulate  different  theories  of  evolu-  evolution, 
tion.  For  inasmuch  as  a  theory  of  evolution  omits 
to  take  account  of  any  set  of  facts,  be  they  excep- 
tional or  not,  it  proves  unsatisfactory  and  must  yield 
to  one  that  does  make  the  effort  to  explain  all  the 
phenomena.  Thus,  in  our  own  century  we  have 
had  first  the  Hegelian  theory  of  development. 
According  to  this  all  growth  is  the  resultant  of  the 
conflict  of  opposing  forces.  The  appearance  of  any 
force  or  factor  is  a  thesis  that  inevitably,  and  as  if 
by  its  own  inherent  virtue,  brings  about  the  appear- 
ance of  its  opposite  or  the  antithesis.  From  the 
conflict  which  then  ensues  there  emerges  the  union 
of  the  two  forces  in  a  synthesis.  This  law,  it  was 
asserted,  would  satisfactorily  explain  all  the  facts 
of  development  everywhere.  History  and  literature 
or  thought,  whether  religious  or  otherwise,  far  from 
being  exceptions  to  its  operation  were  all  the  more 
under  its  power  because  they  were  ideal  rather  than 
material  elements  of  the  universe,  if  we  may  be 
permitted  to  translate  Hegelian  thought  into  un- 
philosophical  language.  If  one  were  to  assume  the 
validity  of  this  law  and  proceed  to  arrange  the  facts 
of  history,  he  would  reach  certain  definite  results. 
The  Tubingen  school  of  criticism  under  the  lead  of 


110  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

F.  C.  Baur  tried  to  reconstruct  the  history  of  the 
New  Testament  writings,  using  chiefly  this  argument 
from  the  development  of  thought.  The  traditional 
view  of  the  origin  of  the  New  Testament  books  was 
set  aside  as  unphilosophical.  It  was  noticed  that  the 
four  Epistles  of  Paul — those  to  the  Galatians,  Cor- 
inthians, and  Romans — were  pervaded  by  a  spirit  of 
aggressive  universalism,  an  interpretation  of  Chris- 
tianity as  meant  for  the  whole  world  and  inde- 
pendently of  Judaism.  Here  was  the  thesis  of  the 
movement;  the  Apocalypse  and  perhaps  one  or  two 
other  works  were  put  forth  in  opposition  to  this 
tendency  to  universalize  the  Gospel;  they  were  the 
answer  of  the  Judaizers  to  the  attempt  of  Paul  in 
the  four  cardinal  epistles.  Here  was  the  antithesis. 
The  struggle  between  the  Pauline  school  and  the 
opposing  school  of  Judaizers  naturally  went  on  at 
first  with  great  earnestness  on  both  sides,  one  might 
almost  say  it  raged  like  a  fierce  warfare,  until  both 
camps  were  wearied  with  it;  meantime  arose  the 
inevitable  party  that  desired  peace;  scheme  after 
scheme  of  compromise  was  proposed  until  the  recon- 
ciliation finally  came  toward  the  end  of  the  second 
century.  This  was  the  synthesis.  It  was  accom- 
panied by  a  considerable  literary  activity;  and  many 
of  the  New  Testament  books,  like  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  the  Epistles  of  Peter,  the  non-controversial 
or  non-doctrinal  Epistles  ascribed  to  Paul,  etc.,  are 
some  of  its  permanent  monuments. 

Now,  while  there  is  much  in  this  view  of  develop- 
ment that  is  true  and  suggestive;  as  an  &  priori 
theory,  introduced  ab  extra  into  the  philosophy  of 
history,  it  was  destined  to  fail.  In  the  field  of  New 


THE    METHODS    OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.       Ill 

Testament  literature,  at  least,  its  failure  has  been  a 
universally  acknowledged  fact  for  many  years  past. 
Undoubted  historical  testimony  shows 

,  .    .     '      -       ,  Its  failure. 

that  the  order  of  the  origin  of  the 
New  Testament  books  is  not  the  order  assigned  to 
them  on  the  assumption  of  the  truth  of  this  theory 
of  development.  Whatever  the  truth  may  be  regard- 
ing that  theory  as  a  purely  philosophical  theory  of 
its  application  in  other  fields,  it  is  not  satisfactory 
in  New  Testament  criticism. 

Accordingly  there  has  appeared  another  theory  of 
evolution,  more  recently.  This  claims  to  be  not  a 
purely  philosophical  theory,  but  one  spencerian 
based  on  natural  science.  Herbert  evolution. 
Spencer  has  taught  that  development  proceeds  from 
the  simple  to  the  complex,  from  the  homogeneous 
to  the  heterogeneous.  It  is  only  in  these  simple 
terms  that  this  theory  can  be  stated  so  as  to  include 
all  the  thinkers  who  have  adopted  it  with  many 
modifications.  This  theory  also  has  laid  claim  to  the 
ability  to  satisfactorily  explain  all  phenomena.  It 
has  been  applied  to  all  departments  of  activity.  It 
begins  in  the  domain  of  natural  science  and  then 
passes  by  easy  stages  into  psychology,  sociology, 
history,  metaphysics,  and  religion.  The  effort  has 
been  made  to  explain  the  origin  and  history  of  all 
religious  phenomena  on  the  basis  of  this  theory. 
The  attempt  is  being  made  even  now  to  reconstruct 
both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  literatures  on 
this  basis.  The  books  that  contain  the  crude  and 
rudimentary  views  are  the  earlier;  those  that  con- 
tain the  complex  and  refined  are  the  later.  This 
is  the  simple  rule  of  this  method  of  procedure, 


112  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

of  course  with  modifications  to  adapt  it  to  special 
cases. 

Without  denying  that  this  theory  also  contains 
elements  of  truth  which  it  would  behoove  the  philo- 

its  inade-  sophic  world  to  note  and  learn,  it  may 
quacy.  be  sai(j  tjlat  jt  cannot  safely  be  used 

as  a  key  to  the  original  order  of  the  Biblical  writ- 
ings. Although  the  course  of  development  is  from 
the  simple  to  the  complex,  from  the  crude  to  the 
refined,  yet  at  times  there  are  apparent  violations 
of  this  principle.  There  are  recrudescences  of  the 
refined  and  the  rudimentation  and  utter  disappear- 
ance of  distinct  and  highly  complicated  organs  and 
the  simplification  of  complicated  organisms  even  in 
the  world  with  which  natural  science  is  accustomed 
to  deal.  And  here  the  operation  of  law  seems  to  be 
absolutely  uniform  and  inexorable.  Much  more 
than  probable  it  will  be  that  the  world  of  history, 
with  its  network  of  contingencies  arising  from  the 
free  action  of  free  beings,  should  present  the  irregu- 
lar and  unexpected  in  its  course  of  development.  In 
watching  this  stream  it  is  not  difficult  to  fall  into 
the  mistake  of  looking  upon  the  eddy  as  the  main 
current  and  upon  the  main  stream  as  the  eddy.  We 
Uses-  i  Pre-  are  thus  led  to  form  an  approximate 

liminary  sketch.    Jjea  Qf   tne  uses  that   may  fog    ma(Je  of 

this  form  of  the  argument.  They  are  two.  First,  a 
preliminary  and  tentative  conspectus  of  the  whole 
situation  may  be  drawn  up  to  be  held  as  a  sketch 
ready  for  the  picture  that  will  be  later  put  into  it. 
This  must  in  no  wise  be  allowed  to  take  such  rigid 
shape  that  it  cannot  be  modified;  no  law  of  evolu- 
tion, as  we  have  learned,  can  &  priori  furnish  the 


THE    METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.       113 

molds  into  which  the  individual  case  shall  run.  It 
only  furnishes  the  type,  and  the  type  never  coincides 
with  the  individual.  The  critic,  as  he  launches  out 
on  his  work,  may  find  it  profitable  to  take  a  chart 
with  him;  but  he  must  not  allow  this  chart  to  preju- 
dice his  mind  against  facts  that  appear  to  be  at 
variance  from  it. 

Secondly,  the  argument  from  the  development  of 
thought  may  be  used  in  corroborating  results  which 
have  been  reached  in  other  and  inde-  a  In  corrobo. 
pendent  ways;  or,  in  other  words,  by  rative "suits, 
the  use  of  the  literary  and  historical  method 
already  described.  This  corresponds  to  the  use 
made  by  the  traveler  of  descriptions  of  places  in  his 
guide-book.  After  he  has  followed  the  directions 
given  and  has  according  to  all  indications  reached 
his  destination,  he  may  revert  to  these  descriptions 
and  assure  himself  that  he  has  really  followed  the 
directions  faithfully,  because  he  has  come  to  the 
places  described. 

A  word  is  needed  on  the  cumulative  force  of 
these  three  arguments — the  literary,  the  historical, 
and  the  theological.  These  argu- 

,  .  Cumulative 

ments  may  be  used  singly  or  in  con-  force  of  argu. 
junction  with  one  another.  In  fact, 
the  use  of  some  of  the  subordinate  arguments 
viewed  as  varieties  of  each  of  these  main  ones  has 
already  been  alluded  to.  The  effect  of  the  com- 
bined use  of  the  three  main  lines  of  consideration 
will  naturally  be  the  same  as  the  effect  of  the  com- 
bined use  of  the  subordinate  ones;  if  any  different 
it  will  be  more  strongly  marked  as  an  effect.  The 
possibilities  in  the  case  of  the  application  of 


114  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

all  the  different  methods  on  the  same  subject  are  : 
(i)  that  all  these  lines  of  consideration  converge 
and  point  to  the  same  result.  The  obvious  effect 

when  results  of  this  convergence  is  the  strengthen- 
converge.  jng  of  eac]1  separate  line  of  testimony. 

But  the  strengthening  is  not  to  be  measured  as  in  a 
simple  and  mathematical  problem;  the  force  of  the 
three  concurrent  arguments  is  not  equal  here  to  the 
sum  of  the  forces  of  the  individual  arguments,  but 
exceeds  this  very  much.  The  convergence  itself  is 
a  sort  of  fourth  argument,  establishing  the  truth  of 
the  results  reached  by  the  separate  application  of 
the  three,  and  at  the  same  time  assuring  the  critic 
that  his  employment  of  these  has  been  free  from  the 
abuses  to  which  they  are  liable;  that  he  has  steered 
clear  of  the  dangers  of  error  attending  their  use.  In 
such  a  case,  therefore,  we  have  the  force  of  cumu- 
lative reasoning  illustrated. 

But  though  such  cases  of  the  convergence  of  the 
various  lines  of  procedure  is  not   only  supposable 

weaker     if    and  frequently  actual,  yet  there  are, 
they  fail  to.       on  j.^  Q^gj-  hand,  large  numbers  of 

instances  in  which  the  processes  above  named  lead 
to  different  results.  Moreover  the  degree  of  differ- 
ence pointed  at  by  these  different  arguments  is 
sometimes  more  and  sometimes  less.  There  are 
instances  in  which  this  difference  is  slight  and  a 
careful  review  of  the  situation  reconciles  the 
apparent  discrepancy  and  harmonizes  the  result. 
The  force  of  the  arguments,  when  they  run  in  this 
way  parallel  to  one  another,  so  to  speak,  and  do  not 
seem  to  converge,  is  hardly  as  great  as  in  the  case 
already  supposed  of  their  converging.  And  yet, 


THE    METHODS   OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.      115 

as  they  do  not  conflict  with  one  another,  there  is 
evidently  no  loss  of  the  force  of  each.  While  their 
whole  effect  is  not  cumulative,  their  separate 
efficacy  is  not  impaired.  This  case,  however,  is  par- 
ticularly liable  to  call  into  operation  influences  that 
should  be  strictly  kept  out  of  all  scientific  investi- 
gation. When  the  result  seems  to  tremble  in  the 
balance  and  a  slight  consideration  may  affect  it  one 
way  or  another,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  Suspens}on  Of 
the  critic  should  be  affected  by  subtle  Jud8ment- 
influences  and  assert,  with  more  positiveness  than 
is  warranted  by  the  data,  one  or  another  of  the  pos- 
sible results.  He  will,  under  such  circumstances, 
encounter  first  of  all  the  natural  desire  to  show 
something  positive  for  the  labor  he  has  bestowed  on 
his  investigation.  It  is  natural  to  avoid,  if  possible, 
the  negative  and  uncertain.  Negative  results  are 
generally  discouraging;  one,  therefore,  turns  away 
from  them  and  instinctively  prefers  that  which  is 
sure  and  steadfast.  It  is  under  such  circumstances 
that  the  true  temper  of  the  critic  will  be  tested  and 
proved.  He  only  is  the  true  scholar  who  can  resist 
this  temptation  and  confess  for  himself,  and  for  his 
favorite  method  of  investigation,  inability  to  attain 
sure  conclusions  with  the  light  available;  he  who 
will  confess  willingness  to  wait  for  more  light,  or 
else  let  the  questions  involved  be  determined  by 
processes  and  methods  other  than  those  of  the 
Higher  Criticism.  Then  again,  in  cases  where  the 
evidence  of  different  arguments  seems  to  leave  the 
result  in  doubt,  bias  will  tend  to  develop;  and  the 
knot  which  sound  criticism  cannot  untie  will  be  cut 
by  the  sword  of  prejudice.  It  is  entirely  unneces- 


Il6  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

sary  to  point  out  the  utter  unfitness  of  any  bias  as  a 
ground  of  settling  questions  of  the  sort  that  criti- 
cism deals  with.  It  is  sufficient  to  point  out  just 
now  the  dangers  which  beset  the  situation  under 
consideration,  /.  e.,  that  in  which  the  considerations 
derived  from  the  different  arguments  point  to  differ- 
ing, but  not  contradictory  or  irreconcilable,  results. 

The  remaining  possibility  is  that  in  which  these 
arguments  neither  converge  nor  run  parallel,  but 
when  they  diverge.  The  results  reached  by  the 
diverge,  review,  application  of  each  seem  to  be  con- 
tradictory and  mutually  exclusive.  Obviously,  in 
this  case  either  the  methods  have  not  been  used 
right  or  they  are  not  relevant.  It  is  possible 
that  one  or  two  of  them  could  not  be  very  well 
applied  on  account  of  the  conditions  of  the  case. 
Whether  this  is  the  case,  or  there  has  been  some 
false  step  in  the  process,  can  only  be  found  out  upon 
a  careful  review  of  the  whole  investigation.  Assum- 
ing that  there  has  been  no  such  flaw,  the  critic's 
next  step  forward  will  be  to  verify  and  correct  the 
results  of  each  process  by  comparison  with  those  of 
the  others;  beginning  with  that  which  seems  to  be 
certain  and  advancing  to  the  more  doubtful,  until  he 
reaches  the  point  where  the  contradiction  appears, 
and  holding  judgment  in  abeyance  from  that  point 
onward. 

Critics    are   accustomed    to   speak   of    "critical 

divination  "  in  a  way  to  confuse  the  inexperienced 

"Critical          layman.     The  phrase   is   an   apt   one 

Divination."        an(j  mav  foe  ugecj  as  a  verv  convenient 

designation  of  a  power  which  the  successful  critic  has 
or  must  have.  But  what  is  "critical  divination"  ? 


THE    METHODS    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM.      1 17 

First  of  all,  it  is  not  a  magical  power  acquired  in 
a  way  unknown  and  unknowable  to  the  non-critical 
world.  Neither  is  it  a  separate  faculty  Not  a  magical 
like  a  sixth  or  seventh  sense,  enabling  P°wer- 
some  men  to  see  phenomena  which  others  cannot. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  a  faculty  of  mere  guess- 
ing, a  habit  of  conjecture  as  to  matters  that  cannot  be 
made  the  subjects  of  precise  knowledge.  Critical 
divination  is  rather  skill  acquired  by  study  and 
experience  in  using  the  critical  methods  above 
explained  and  described.  It  is  the  But  skin  in 
use  of  these  methods  without  perhaps  methods- 
a  distinct  and  analytic  idea  of  the  value  of  each;  or 
of  the  checking  and  correcting  influence  of  any  on 
the  others.  It  is  the  power  of  using  these  methods 
and  principles  correctly,  or  of  reaching  results  which, 
whether  secured  by  the  individual  application  of  the 
methods  or  not,  stand  the  tests  put  to  them.  Apart 
from  this  power  there  is  no  "  critical  divination,"  as 
a  faculty  either  native  or  acquired.  But  as  this 
power  is  the  synthesis  of  right  principles  and  tact 
in  using  them,  and  as  that  synthesis  cannot  at  any 
time  be  absolute  and  perfect,  it  follows  that  "criti- 
cal divination  "  cannot  be  trusted  as  absolute  and 
infallible  authority.  Its  trustworthiness  is  pre- 
cisely that  which  belongs  to  as  full  and  correct 
a  use  of  the  principles  as  has  been  made;  neither 
more  nor  less.  When  the  knowledge  of  these 
methods  and  principles  has  become  so  inwrought 
in  the  investigator  that  he  can  work  without  being 
conscious  of  processes;  when  critical  activity  is  like 
a  second  nature  to  him;  he  may  be  said  to  have  the 
faculty  of  "critical  divination"  developed  fully. 


Il8  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Any  other  use  of  the  term  divination  is  misleading 
and  confusing. 

From   the   above   it  becomes   plain  that    "divi- 
nation," cannot  be  admitted  as  legitimate  if  it  mean 
nothing    more    than    conjecture.     In 

Mere  conjec- 
ture  inadmis-      fact,  pure  conjecture  has  no  place  in 

scientific  criticism.  Conjecture  on 
the  basis  of  some  facts  may  lead  to  a  working 
hypothesis;  but  such  a  working  hypothesis  can  only 
attain  the  trustworthiness  of  a  theory  when  more 
facts  are  brought  to  its  support,  and  the  conjecture 
ceases  to  be  a  mere  conjecture  as  to  the  meaning 
of  a  few  facts  and  becomes  the  explanation  of  a 
complex  situation.  Even  thus,  a  theory  based 
mainly  on  conjectural  interpretations  of  facts  does 
not  possess  the  strength  of  a  theory  which  rests  on 
a  complete  induction,  carried  on  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  science  of  criticism.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  conjecture  is  resorted  to  by  critics  only  as 
a  last  resource,  and  on  the  ground  that  the  facts 
at  hand  do  not  lead  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 
Results  based  on  conjecture  are  distrusted  uni- 
versally as  admitting  too  much  play  to  the  subjective 
element  in  the  critic  and  thus  vitiated  by  personal 
preferences  based  on  his  education,  temperament, 
or  previous  beliefs. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  AND   ORIENTAL    ARCHEOLOGY. 

THE  Higher  Criticism  approaches  its  problems 
with  the  light  that  may  be  secured  within  the  writ- 
ings it  examines.  Some  light  may  be  Archeology : 
secured  within  these  problems  from  itsnature- 
without  by  studying  the  several  ages  and  countries 
in  which  the  writings  originated  through  Oriental 
archeology.  In  its  broader  sense  Oriental  arche- 
ology includes  all  that  may  be  made  known  of 
Oriental  lands  and  peoples.  The  Bible  may  be 
used  as  one  of  its  sources.  The  extra-Biblical 
sources  are  the  fragmentary  notices  of  ancient  his- 
torians and  the  discoveries  of  recent  excavators  and 
explorers.  Up  to  within  comparatively  recent  years 
by  far  the  largest  amount  of  the  materials  dealt 
with  by  the  science  of  archeology  was  derived  from 
the  Bible  itself.  Perhaps,  even  now,  the  greater 
proportion  of  this  material  might  be  found  to  be 
taken  from  the  same  source. 

There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  during  the  last 
half  century  the  extra-Biblical  source  has  been  made 
to  yield  a  vast  array  of  facts.  The  Recent  de- 
proportions  of  Biblical  and  monumental  veiopment. 
material  have  been  changed,  if  not  exactly  reversed. 
So  large  is  in  fact  the  contribution  to  the  realm  of 
archeology  made  by  recent  exploration  and  excava- 

119 


120  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

tion  that  it  has  been  properly  designated  as  a  "new 
world."  It  constitutes  not  by  any  means  the  least 
of  the  remarkable  achievements  of  the  last  half  of 
the  nineteenth  century  to  have  recovered  this  vast 
array  of  facts,  and  to  have  reconstructed  out  of  them 
the  record  of  the  life  of  more  than  one  empire  and 
civilization.  To  tell  the  story  of  this  recovery  and 
reconstruction  in  detail  would  lead  us  too  far  aside 
from  our  immediate  task.  So  much  of  it  as  may 
lead  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  situation,  as 
far  as  it  bears  on  criticism,  "may  be  summed  up  in 
a  few  words. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  present  century  the  lan- 
guages and  histories  of  the  Nile  and  Mesopotamian 
Research  in  valleys  were  almost  altogether  un- 
Egypt.  known.  As  late  as  1842  it  was  said 

that  "  a  case  three  feet  square  enclosed  all  that 
remained  not  only  of  the  great  city  Nineveh,  but  of 
Babylon  itself."  It  was  in  1817  that  Champollion 
deciphered  the  famous  Rosetta  Stone  and  discovered 
the  key  to  the  hieroglyphics  of  Egypt.  This 
opened  the  numerous  and  rich  monuments  of  the 
Nile  valley  as  a  field  of  investigation  for  scholars. 
One  after  another,  able  men  entered  the  field,  and 
after  the  main  accessible  inscriptions  had  been  col- 
lated and  read,  an  organization  under  the  title  of  the 
"  Egyptian  Exploration  Fund  "  took  the  work,  in 
1883,  of  searching,  through  the  means  of  pickax  and 
shovel,  for  such  data  as  were  buried  under  the 
surface. 

Somewhat  earlier,  1802,  Grotefend  began  the 
recovery  of  the  cuneiform  alphabet — if  the  name 
may  be  used  of  such  a  system  as  that  of  the  Assy- 


ORIENTAL    ARCHEOLOGY.  121 

rianand  Babylonian  writing.  Lassen  and  Sir  Henry 
Rawlinson  later  completed  this  recovery  and  made 
it  worth  while  for  Layard  and  Botta, 

J  .  In  Assyria. 

and  the  many  who  have  since  fol- 
lowed them,  to  enter  Mesopotamia  and  unearth  the 
remains  of  its  great  cities.  The  more  immediate 
seat  of  Biblical  history,  the  land  of  Palestine,  was 
entered  by  Edward  Robinson  in  1838  in  the  interests, 
first  of  all,  of  a  careful  topographical  knowledge. 

William  M.  Thompson  followed  Robinson.  In 
1865  the  "Palestine  Exploration  Fund  "  was  organ- 
ized under  the  auspices  of  Queen 

,,.  .  .  .  .In  Palestine. 

Victoria.  Its  first  president  was  the 
Archbishop  of  York,  Dr.  Thomson.  On  the  list  of  its 
supporters  appeared  the  names  of  some  of  the  fore- 
most scholars,  ecclesiastics,  and  Orientalists.  Some 
of  the  men  who  have  served  in  connection  with  it  as 
active  explorers  are  Sir  Charles  Wilson,  Sir  Charles 
Warren,  Lieutenant  Conder,  H.  S.  Palmer,  and 
Flinders  Petrie.  It  has  published  its  Quarterly 
Statements  of  the  results  secured.  The  volumes 
put  forth  by  those  who  directly  or  indirectly  helped 
to  secure  these  results  constitute  veritable  mines  of 
materials  illustrative  of  Bible  times  and  events.  In 
1870  the  "American  society  for  the  Exploration  of 
Palestine "  was  organized,  and  carried  on  work 
similar  to  that  of  the  English  society  until  1883, 
when  it  withdrew  from  the  field. 

The  labors  of  these  societies  and  individuals  have 
enriched  the  museums  of  Europe  with  a  vast  store 
of  interesting  articles  from  antiquity,       Materials  ac- 
besides    occasioning   the   erection   of    cumulated« 
local    museums  for  the   care  of    such  articles  as 


122  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

might  not  be  removed  from  the  scene  of  their  dis- 
covery. Rock  and  wall  inscriptions  have  been 
copied  with  exemplary  accuracy.  Temples,  col- 
umns, statues,  monoliths,  and  obelisks  have  been 
studied,  photographed,  and  described  in  detail. 
Cylinders,  seals,  coins,  funeral  tablets,  contract 
tablets,  papyrus  rolls  and  slabs  have  been  collected, 
and  the  inscriptions  on  them  have  been  reproduced 
in  facsimile  impressions.  The  whole  territory  of 
Egypt,  Mesopotamia,  Arabia,  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and 
Palestine  has  been  surveyed  and  accurately  mapped 
out,  with  a  view  to  bringing  before  the  mind  the 
precise  surroundings  within  which  events  occurred. 
To  bring  about  these  results  two  classes  of  patient, 
specially  qualified,  hard-working  scholars  have 
devoted  their  time  and  energy,  viz.,  the  explorers 
and  excavators  on  the  field  and  in  the  midst  of  the 
mounds  and  ruins  of  the  East,  and  philologists  and 
historians  in  European  museums,  who  have  taken 

Deciphered  by  the    discoveries    of    the     excavators, 

deciphered  them,  arranged  them,  and 

out  of  their  contents  have  written  the  histories  of 

the   Egyptians,    the   Hittites,    the   Chaldeans,    the 

Assyrians,  the  Babylonians,  and  the  Persians. 

The  Biblical  student  is  especially  to  be  congratu- 
lated on  the  resuscitation  of  these  ancient  civiliza- 

Bearing  on  tions  and  histories,  because  almost  all 
the  Bible.  of  the  material  thus  recovered  bears 
either  directly  or  indirectly  on  the  content  of  the 
Bible.  Jewish  history  came  in  contact  with  the 
peoples  and  lands  thus  rehabilitated  at  almost  every 
point.  Beginning  with  Abraham,  even  before  he 
left  the  home  of  his  ancestors  near  the  Persian  Gulf, 


ORIENTAL  ARCHEOLOGY.  123 

and  ending  with  the  time  when  Jerusalem,  the  Holy 
City,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Romans  under  Titus, 
the  combined  life  and  history  of  these  races  and 
lands,  now  made  to  live  again,  form  the  environ- 
ment within  which  Bible  history  moves. 

The  questions  which  this  science  of  Oriental 
archeology  raises  with  reference  to  criticism  are  : 
How  does  the  light  from  the  monu-  Reiation  to 
ments  affect  the  problems  of  criticism  ?  Criticism. 
Do  the  two  sciences — criticism  and  archeology — 
come  in  contact  at  any  point  ?  If  they  do,  are  the 
results  they  reach  in  agreement  or  conflict  ?  In  case 
of  conflict,  how  shall  the  difference  between  them  be 
settled  ? 

As  to  the  first  and  fundamental  one  of  these 
questions,  it  takes  but  a  casual  and  cursory  exami- 
nation to  show  that  these  two  branches  contact  in- 
of  investigation,  starting  from  opposite  evitable- 
points  and  working  independently,  still  come  into 
direct  touch  with  one  another  at  several  points. 
Archeology,  as  we  have  seen,  throws  a  flood  of 
light  on  the  periods  during  which  the  literary  pro- 
ductions examined  on  internal  grounds  by  the 
Higher  Criticism  made  their  appearance.  As  far  as 
it  gives  us  an  insight  into  the  manners,  customs, 
thoughts,  and  habits  of  the  times,  it  must  confirm, 
disturb,  or  upset  results  apparently  established  by 
the  internal  method  of  research.  What  is  possible 
under  one  set  of  conditions  is  impossible  under 
another.  What  is  likely  to  happen  in  a  given  en- 
vironment is  extremely  unlikely,  if  not  impossible, 
when  that  environment  has  been  changed.  Light 
thrown  into  this  environment  will  help  us  to  see  the 


124  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

conclusions  of  criticism  as  well  founded  or  un- 
founded. Even  though  archeology  may  not  be  able 
to  tell  us  directly  whether  Moses  wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch, or  Isaiah  the  last  half  of  the  book  ascribed 
to  him,  it  will  nevertheless  tell  us  whether  Moses 
could  or  could  not  have  written  the  work  assigned 
him  by  tradition  ;  whether,  in  the  times  of  Isaiah, 
such  words  as  are  found  in  the  last  part  of  the 
book  were  or  were  not  appropriate  as  a  prophetic 
message. 

But  if  such  contact  does  take  place  between 
archeology  and  criticism,  it  is  of  importance  to  fix 

Results  how  the  principles  on  which  the  results  of 
adjusted.  the  two  sciences  shall  be  fitted  into 

each  other.  Let  it  be  observed  then  that,  in  deter- 
mining the  modus  vivendi  of  these  two  sciences,  re- 
gard must  be  had  to  the  transitional  nature  of  both 
of  them.  Results  are  not  final  in  either.  Archeol- 
ogy, like  criticism,  has  not  yet  reached  that  age  and 
condition  wherein  it  may  claim  for  its  findings 
finality.  If  it  is  not  on  the  one  hand  an  infant 
science,  it  lacks  on  the  other  hand  the  strength  and 
assurance  which  come  from  having  gathered  in  all 
the  material  available  for  it.  By  this  is  not  meant 
that,  in  order  to  secure  trustworthy  results  through 
archeology,  the  whole  field  should  have  been  scoured 
and  all  the  facts  brought  to  light  ;  but  that  the 
light  on  any  individual  point  shall  have  been 
gathered  and  focused  on  it  in  sufficient  abundance 
to  make  us  see  it  clearly.  Besides  the  collection 

Caution  neces-  of  tne  facts>  in  order  to  obtain  assur- 
sary-  ance  as  to  results,  it  is  necessary  that 

time  and  opportunity  shall  be  given  to  have  these 


ORIENTAL    ARCHEOLOGY.  125 

discussed,  their  bearings  on  one  another  realized, 
and  the  proper  inferences  from  them  formulated 
into  conclusions.  New  excavations  and  new  dis- 
coveries are  being  made  yearly,  one  might  almost 
say,  daily.  New  facts  are  coming  to  light,  and 
while  these  facts  do  not  annul  previously  dis- 
covered facts,  they  may  modify  their  meaning. 
The  present  conclusions  of  archeology  cannot  there- 
fore be  in  every  case  assigned  a  certainty  and-  fin- 
ality which  can  only  come  later.  They  cannot  be 
used  without  exception  as  a  norm  or  standard  to 
which  the  conclusions  of  criticism  must  be  brought 
to  be  corrected.  For  the  most  part  they  are  too 
vague  and  general  to  serve  in  testing  such  specific 
and  precise  assertions  as  critics  are  accustomed 
to  make  about  authorship,  integrity,  and  literary 
form. 

But  while  it  is  necessary  to  enter  this  caveat 
against  the  indiscriminate  or  premature  use  of 
archeological  data,  it  is  important  on  Yet  must  be 
the  other  hand  not  to  underestimate  used> 
the  significance  of  these  facts  which  Oriental  re- 
searches have  definitely  ascertained.  Moreover  it 
would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  circle  of 
these  facts  is  a  small  one.  Archeology  has  made 
known  a  large  number  of  historical  facts,  in  the 
light  of  which  certain  views  become  absolutely  cer- 
tain and  their  opposites  absolutely  untenable.  It 
has  therefore  thus  set  some  general  limits  within 
which  criticism  must  move.  Some  of  these  may  be 
stated  as  follows  : 

i.  The   general   credibility   of    Biblical   history. 
Formerly  criticism  was  free  to  begin  with  the  as- 


126  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

sumption  that  the  historic  accounts  in  the  books  of 

the  Bible  were  not  credible.     This  might  be  denied 

as  an  arbitrary  assumption,  but  there  was  nothing 

of    a    positive    nature    to    set     over 

i.  They    con- 
firm Bible  his-    against  it,  if  made.     The  result  might 

betray  the  weakness  of  reasoning  with 
such  an  assumption  at  its  base  ;  but  if  the  critic 
still  persisted  in  taking  his  stand  on  it,  it  was  not 
possible  to  convince  him  that  he  was  wrong.  Arche- 
ology now  changes  the  situation.  It  says  to  the 
critic  that  that  assumption  is  not  only  arbitrary, 
but  contrary  to  all  the  known  facts.  Parts  of  that 
history  which  was  assumed  to  be  incredible  are 
known  to  be  true,  being  tested  by  tests  as  stringent 
as  those  applied  to  any  other  historic  accounts. 
The  critic  need  not  wait  until  the  weakness  of  the 
result  shall  reveal  the  weakness  of  the  basal  assump- 
tion; he  can  perceive  that  the  assumption  is  con- 
trary to  facts.  This  result  archeology  has  brought 
about  by  throwing  considerable  light  on  the  darkest 
and  most  isolated  portions  of  the  Biblical  history, 
the  patriarchal  age  and  the  monarchical  age  of 
Israel.  With  reference  to  the  patriarchal  age,  the 
Patriarchal  allegation  made  by  some  of  the  earlier 
history  true.  critics,  that  this  was  simply  a  Hebrew 
mythology  analogous  to  the  mythologies  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  is  set  at  rest  by  the  discoveries 
of  explorers.  The  age  of  Joseph  and  the  twelve 
sons  of  Jacob,  of  Jacob,  of  Isaac,  and  even  of 
Abraham,  was  in  no  sense  a  parallel  to  the  ages  of 
the  Greek  and  Roman  heroes  and  demigods.  At 
the  time  of  Abraham,  Egypt,  Mesopotamia,  and 
even  Canaan,  "the  bridge  from  Egypt  to  Syria  and 


ORIENTAL   ARCHEOLOGY.  127 

Babylon,"  enjoyed  a  comparatively  high  state  of 
civilization.  The  Babylonian  bricks  indicate  that 
Chedorlaomer  was  a  probable  if  not  an  identified 
character.  The  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets  show  that 
there  was  diplomatic  and  commercial  correspondence 
between  Egypt  and  Canaan.  That  a  history  like 
that  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  should  be  con- 
sidered impossible  in  the  pre-Mosaic  age  in  Israel, 
is  not  a  sound  assumption  for  criticism.  The  his- 
tory is  altogether  too  natural,  and  accords  with  the 
facts  discovered  outside  of  it  too  well,  to  be  set 
aside  summarily. 

2.  There  is  a  special  correlation  of  the  history 
gathered  from  the  monuments  with  the  history  re- 
corded in  the  Biblical  sources.  The 

2          Light 

Egypt  of  the  Exodus  corresponds  with  thrown  on  the 
the  Egypt  of  the  period  of  the  Exodus 
as  read  in  the  hieroglyphics.  The  accounts  of  the 
kings  of  Judah  and  Israel  fit  into  the  accounts  of 
the  conditions  of  the  world  as  found  in  the  Assyrian 
tablets.  Ahab,  Jehu,  Benhadad,  Azariah,  Mena- 
hem,  Pekah,  Hoshea,  Rezon,  Jehoahaz,  Hezekiah, 
are  names  which  occur  in  the  Assyrian  monuments, 
and  what  is  said  of  them  positively  coincides  with 
what  is  recorded  in  the  Biblical  books  as  far  as  the 
two  accounts  touch  on  the  same  points,  and  neither 
account  renders  impossible  the  truthfulness  of  the 
other  at  those  points  where  they  do  not  touch. 
This  is  true  of  the  accounts  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
the  later  Babylonians  and  the  Persians,  as  far  as 
their  histories  come  in  contact  with  the  Biblical 
history.  These  histories  dovetail  into  one  another. 
Any  results  of  criticism  that  would  undertake  to 


128  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

dislocate  and  rearrange  this  history,  so  constructed 
and  verified  by  facts  drawn  from  two  sources,  must 
now  settle  its  accounts,  not  with  the  Bible  merely, 
but  with  Oriental  archeology  also. 

3.  Archeology    renders    untenable  any   theories 
which  assume  false  positions  regarding  literary  work 


3  Literary  *n  early  an^  Oriental  surroundings. 
methods  cleared.  The  date  of  the  beginning  of  the  art 
of  writing  has  been  set  much  farther  back  than  it 
was  commonly  supposed  to  be  before  the  dawn  of 
modern  archeological  science.  The  first  historical 
critics  of  the  Pentateuch  denied  its  Mosaic  author- 
ship, partly  on  the  assumption  that  the  art  of  writing 
was  not  known  at  the  time  of  Moses.  Such  a  con- 
clusion would  now  find  itself  face  to  face  with  the 
remains  of  the  art  of  writing  that  come  from  cen- 
turies, if  not,  as  some  say,  millenniums  before  the 
time  of  Moses.  Qne  may  now  actually  see  in  the 
museums  of  Europe  papyri  from  Egypt,  tablets  from 
Assyria,  and  inscriptions  from  Babylonia  which  ante- 
date Moses.  The  critic  who  still  desires  to  use  this 
assumption  must  now  do  as  Vernes  and  Havet  have 
done  —  speak  only  of  the  comparative  scarcity  of  the 
art  of  writing  in  Palestine  before  the  Babylonian 
exile;  and  even  then  his  assertion  will  fall  to  the 
ground  :  first,  from  the  unwillingness  of  men  to 
believe  that  while  Egypt,  Babylonia,  and  all  other 
surrounding  regions  had  a  literature  and  literary 
methods  quite  advanced  in  character,  Israel  had 
no  knowledge  of  writing;  and  secondly,  because  the 
Moabite  stone  and  the  Siloam  Inscription  positively 
render  such  assertions  unscientific,  and  the  views 
based  on  them  as  hardly  worth  repeating. 


ORIENTAL    ARCHEOLOGY.  129 

4.  Archeology  leads  to  the  coordination  of  the 
traditions  and  beliefs  of  allied  races.  It  has  done 
this  with  the  Indo-European  family  of  Ligh?  thrown 
peoples.*  It  has  gathered  materials  on  traditions, 
and  made  beginnings  in  the  same  direction  with  the 
Semitic  peoples.  These  are  but  mere  beginnings; 
but  pursued  with  due  diligence  and  caution,  there  is 
no  reason  why  they  should  not  be  followed  by  ample 
and  more  or  less  satisfactory  results. 

There  are  four  main  subjects  in  the  early  Biblical 
account  that  may  be  associated  with  allied  Semitic 
traditions.  These  are  the  creation, 
the  Fall,  the  Deluge,  and  the  Tower  Semitic  tradi- 
of  Babel.  The  question  before  Ori- 
ental archeology  is,  How  are  these  traditions  re- 
lated to  one  another  ?  Are  the  Biblical  accounts 
received  from  the  extra-Biblical,  or  vice  versa  ?  Or 
are  they  all  received  from  some  common  and  earlier 
source  ?  When  answers  have  been  found  to  these 
questions,  the  next  step  in  the  process  is  to  inquire 

*  The  process  of  reducing  traditions  and  legends  to  system  is 
the  same  in  general  as  the  process  followed  by  comparative  philol- 
ogists in  defining  the  relations  of  different  but  allied  languages. 
Words  and  grammatical  peculiarities  existing  in  all  the  individual 
members  of  a  group,  it  is  argued  by  philologists,  must  have  existed 
in  the  original  stock  from  which  these  sprang.  Had  they  appeared 
after  the  separation  and  departure  from  the  common  original  they 
could  not  have  been  the  same  in  all.  So  traditions  and  legends 
common  to  a  family  of  peoples  must  have  a  common  origin  as  far 
back  in  time  as  the  age  of  the  common  existence  of  the  peoples 
together.  There  may  be  in  language  an  amount  of  material  trans- 
ferred from  language  to  language  after  separation  ;  so  there  may 
be  traditions  which  have  been  carried  from  place  to  place.  But  in 
both  cases  these  are  distinguishable  from  the  original  stock  and  do 
not  confuse  the  specialist. 


130  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

how  these  answers  fit  into  the  conclusions  reached 
by  criticism.  If  criticism  has  proceeded  on  the 
assumption  that  these  traditions  were  of  later  date 
than  archeology  proves  them  to  be,  it  must  review 
its  conclusion  and  correct  it.  But  there  are  alleged 
to  be  within  the  Biblical  documents  duplicate  forms 
of  the  traditions — two  or  three  accounts  of  the 
Deluge,  etc. — and  these  are  distinguished  from  one 
another  by  the  characteristics  of  the  alleged  docu- 
ments in  which  they  occur.  If  archeology  by  com- 
paring these  duplicate  accounts  with  extra-Biblical 
forms  of  the  same,  especially  such  as  come  from 
very  early  and  remote  regions,  should  prove  that 
the  characteristic  features  which  distinguish  the 
documents  are  found  in  the  extra-Biblical  forms 
also,  the  force  of  the  consideration  from  these 
characteristic  differences  would  be  destroyed.  For 
if  what  was  supposed  to  be  the  characteristic  of  an 
author  of  the  eighth  or  fourth  century  B.  c.,  living  in 
Palestine,  should  turn  up  in  a  production  or  tradi- 
tion proved  to  be  as  old  as  the  nineteenth  century 
B.  c.,  in  Babylonia,  any  conclusion  based  on  the 
imaginary  characteristic  must  fall  to  the  ground. 
In  this,  and  many  similar  ways,  archeological  investi- 
gation of  primitive  traditions  will  prove  a  corrective 
of  purely  conjectural  results.* 

5.   Finally,  archeology  may  serve  as  an  auxiliary 
of  criticism,  whenever  its  light  is  abun- 

5.    Light    on        ,  .  . 

critical    ques-    dant  and  clear,  as  given  settings  ena- 
bling the  critic  to  announce  with  more 
confidence  results  which  his  own  mode  of  investiga- 

*  SeeBissell,  "  The  Situation  Presupposed  in  Genesis,"  Presby- 
terian and  Reformed  Review, 


ORIENTAL   ARCHEOLOGY.  131 

tion  had  reached  tentatively.  The  chronology,  for 
instance,  of  the  Bible  has  never  been  clear.  Strictly 
speaking  there  is  no  chronology  in  the  Biblical 
records,  but  only  chronological  data.  These  may 
be  arranged  variously,  according  to  certain  funda- 
mental assumptions  or  ascertained  facts.  And  the 
results  would  serve  as  already'  indicated  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  historical  argument  in 

.  .  Good  results 

criticism.  Now,  if  archeology  throw  already 
light  on  the  nature  and  mode  of  using 
the  chronological  data  above  mentioned,  and  if, 
above  all,  it  enable  the  critic  to  proceed  not  on  the 
basis  of  assumptions,  but  of  well  established  facts, 
in  building  his  chronology,  the  use  of  the  historical 
argument  will  be  strengthened  by  so  much.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  this  has  been  a  most  fertile  field  of 
research  and  a  source  of  many  valuable  results. 
Many  of  the  prophetic  discourses  of  Isaiah  and 
Jeremiah,  not  to  speak  of  others  of  the  Biblical 
writers,  have  received  an  immense  amount  of 
light  in  this  way.  The  chronological  and  histori- 
cal data  furnished  by  archeology  have  enabled 
critics  to  rearrange  and  to  surround  these  writings 
with  their  natural  environments.  It  is  thus  made 
possible  to  realize,  in  a  measure,  the  situations 
within  which  they  were  first  used. 

Again,  archeological  research   may  fix  with  cer- 
tainty the  geographical  situation  subsumed   within 
the  Biblical    narratives  ;    and,  by  so       Ramsay   on 
doing,   it  may    enable    the    critic    to    Act8t 
establish  or  overthrow  either  old  theories  that  have 
been  accepted  or  new  ones  that  are  proposed  as  to 
the  historicity  and  origin  of  those  narratives.     Pro- 


132  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

fessor  Ramsay*  claims  that  his  geographical  re- 
searches in  Asia  Minor,  taken  together  with  his  view 
of  the  course  taken  by  Paul  on  his  missionary  jour- 
neys, prove  the  book  of  Acts  to  be  exceedingly 
accurate  and  trustworthy.  Its  author  speaks  as 
an  eye-witness  of  the  conditions  existing  in  Asia 
Minor  between  41  and  72  A.  D.  Its  data  corre- 
spond with  the  conditions  of  the  Roman  Empire  at 
that  time  and  at  no  other.  Without  hastily  conced- 
ing this  claim,  we  may  use  it  as  an  illustration  of  the 
way  in  which  archeology  throws  light  on  the  prob- 
lems of  criticism. 

Much  of  this  work  is  done  in  connection  with  and 
as  involved  in  special  interpretation  and  is  thus 

apt  to  be  lost  sight  of  as  criticism  and 
an/lnterpreta-  mistaken  for  exegesis.  The  light  of 

archeology  falls  first  on  the  text  of  the 
books  of  the  Bible.  It  makes  clear  obscurities, 
removes  apparent  discrepancies,  shows  true  order 
where  it  has  been  disturbed  or  indicates  what  the 
chronological  or  logical  order  would  be  in  accordance 
with  modern  ideas,  if  for  some  reason,  which  it  is  not 
necessary  or  possible  to  discover,  some  other  order 
had  been  chosen  by  the  original  authors,  and  thus 
makes  the  content  of  the  writings  usable  as  vehicles 
for  the  discovery  of  the  time  and  place  where  they 
were  put  forth.  But  the  light  thus  indirectly 
reflected  on  the  questions  of  criticism  is  none  the 
less  real  and  valuable,  f 

*  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire. 

fCf.,  as  a  specimen  of  this  indirect  light  of  archeology,  the 
work  done  by  A.  Jeremias  and  Ad.  Billerbeck  on  the  book 
Nahum. 


ORIENTAL    ARCHEOLOGY.  133 

On  the  relations  of  archeology  to  the  Higher  Criticism  see 
Sayce,  The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  1895  ;  and  on 
the  general  subject  of  the  results  of  recent  archeological  research 
as  directly  or  indirectly  affecting  thought  and  belief  regarding  the 
Bible,  cf.  The  Records  of  the  Past,  published  by  S.  Baxter,  1873, 
and  onward  ;  By-Paths  of  Bible  Knowledge,  published  by  The 
Religious  Tract  Society,  1883,  and  onward  ;  St.  Clair,  Buried  Cities, 
1892  ;  Brugsch,  Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs,  new  edition,  1891  ; 
Flinders  Petrie,  Egyptian  Tales  from  the  Papyri,  1895  ; 
Schrader,  Die  Keilinschriften,  und  das  Alte  Testament,  1872, 
2d  ed.  1883  ;  English  translation,  The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and 
the  Old  Testament,  1885-86  ;  McCurdy,  Prophecy,  History,  and 
the  Monuments,  1894. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

POSTULATES  IN    THE   USE   OF   THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

METHODS  are  but  instruments.     They   may  be 
used  properly  or    improperly.     They  derive  their 
Equipment       efficiency   from   him  who   uses  them, 
needed.  Success    in    their  use   depends    alto- 

gether on  the  equipment  of  the  user.  And  this 
equipment  is  to  be  found  in  the  user's  tone  and 
spirit  and  previous  preparation  and  state  of  mind. 
It  is  not  enough  for  a  man  to  possess  and  to  know 
the  value  of  a  microscope;  he  must  also  know  many 
other  things  before  he  can  go  on  to  make  even  the 
most  elementary  use  of  the  instrument.  And  if  he 
should  perhaps  wish  to  enter  into  investigations  of 
an  original  character  in  unexplored  regions,  his 
results  will  be  taken  as  trustworthy  or  not,  accord- 
ing as  he  is  known  to  have  had  adequate  equipment 
and  preparation  for  the  handling  of  as  complicated 
a  piece  of  machinery.  Now  this  preparation  that  is 
prerequired  consists  either  in  the  knowledge  of 
well  established  facts  or  the  adoption  of  mere 
opinions  and  convictions  of  men  regarding  the 
general  constitution  of  the  sphere  in  which  the 
investigation  is  to  be  made.  It  is,  in  other  words, 
either  the  knowledge  of  undisputed  fundamentals  or 
theory,  independent  of  the  sphere,  and  yet  affecting 
one's  view  of  it,  at  least  in  part. 

134 


POSTULATES.  135 

That  an  investigator  proceeds  with  the  assump- 
tion of  certain  theories  as  true  rather  than  their 
opposites  is  apt  to  affect  the  whole 

i       •  e     i  •  i.  tr   ^  Presupposi- 

COmplexiOn      Of     hlS      results.         If   the      tions  as  equip- 
.    ,       ,          .  ment. 

microscopist,  for  instance,  were  to 
start  with  the  presupposition  that  the  current  theory 
of  scientists  regarding  the  nature  and  laws  of  light 
were  entirely  wrong,  and  that  light,  instead  of  being 
a  mere  form  of  motion,  was  in  reality  a  substance 
emitted  from  the  luminous  body,  his  conclusions 
from  certain  observations  would  be  different  from 
those  he  might  reach  if  his  presuppositions  on  these 
subjects  were  the  very  opposite.  And  just  as  the 
microscopist  approaches  his  task  with  a  view  more 
or  less  definite  of  nature,  and  especially  of  that 
part  of  it  which  he  is  to  examine,  so  the  critic 
approaches  his  field  with  theories  regarding  its 
nature.  These  are  presuppositions.  What  should 
be  his  attitude  toward  them  ?  It  may  be  said  :  Let 
him  get  rid  of  them.  At  first  sight  this  answer  may 
strike  us  favorably;  but  it  is  not  the  right  one. 
Presuppositions  are  inevitable.  It  is  true  it  is 
customary  to  deprecate  &  priori  conceptions  and 
deplore  their  admission  into  scientific  investigations, 
but  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  purely  &  posteriori 
research  is  possible  in  any  field.  The  cry  for  the 
use  of  the  inductive  method  is  a  legit-  inductive 
imate  one  and  should  be  carefully  meth°d. 
heeded;  but  it  does  not  altogether  exclude  the 
entertainment  of  presuppositions.  The  mind  does 
not  need  to  be  turned  into  a  blank  in  order  to  enter 
upon  a  research.  Criticism  is  not  one  of  the  first 
activities  of  a  man,  of  a  Christian,  or  of  a  Christian 


136  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

scholar.  It  comes  after  views  have  been  formed  on 
other  and  kindred  subjects  and  cannot  take  or  usurp 
the  place  of  these  preceding  departments.  And 
indeed,  from  one  point  of  view,  these  previous 
opinions  or  items  of  information  are  of  great  service. 
They  throw  light  on  the  subjects  under  investiga- 
tion by  criticism,  in  more  than  one  way.  Let  the 
mind  of  the  student  be  preoccupied  with  certain 
views  on  subjects  kindred  to  the  topics  dealt  with 
in  criticism;  and  the  clearer  these  views  are  before 
him,  the  abler  he  will  be  to  grasp  the  bearing  of 
critical  principles  and  results  on  the  circle  of  sub- 
jects he  is  investigating.  It  is  only  necessary  that 
he  should  not  be  so  thoroughly  infatuated  by  the 
views  thus  previously  acquired  and  held  as  to  reject 
everything  that  cannot  be  reconciled  with  them. 
To  be  prejudiced  is  not,  after  all,  simply  to  hold 
views  of  a  certain  character  antecedent  to  an  inves- 
tigation, but  so  to  hold  them  as  to  close  the  door  to 
others  better  accredited  to  the  reason. 

Thus,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  no  sphere  of  knowledge 

is  without  its  presuppositions.     The  so-called  exact 

sciences  are   not  exceptions   to   this 

All     sciences  .       .    ,  ,  . 

have     presup-    principle.      The  exact  sciences  differ 
from  all  other  sciences  simply  in  this, 
that  the  presuppositions  underlying  them  are  uni- 
versally agreed  upon.     In  mathematics,  for  instance, 
the   presuppositions  are  the  axioms. 

Exact  sciences.  ,    _        ,  ,.        .  , 

They  are  defined  as  self-evident  truths. 
To  deny  them  is  to  put  one's  self  outside  the  class 
of  those  who  can  speak  intelligently  on  mathematics. 
This  unanimity  in  accepting  certain  presuppositions 
as  postulates  makes  the  exact  sciences  what  their 


POSTULATES.  137 

name  implies.  The  metaphysical  sciences  proceed 
on  the  assumption  of  presuppositions  not  so  uni- 
versally recognized  as  valid;  the  consequence  is 
that  there  are  different  theories,  sometimes  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  one  another,  held  in  the  same 
field  and  on  the  same  subject. 

History  stands  between  the  exact  sciences  and  the 
metaphysical,  in  that  at  times  it  proceeds  upon  the 
basis  of  definitely  ascertained  facts  and 

History. 

at  other  times  again  is  compelled  to 
emphasize  theories  and  interpret  facts  by  theories. 
When  its  sources  are  full,  and  clearly  in  the  domain 
of  the  known  and  fixed,  it  must,  if  true  to  itself, 
deduce  all  its  philosophy  from  these  clearly  known 
facts.  If,  however,  its  sources  are  obscure  and  the 
facts  to  be  found  in  them  few  and  insufficient  in 
themselves  to  furnish  a  sure  basis  of  operations, 
history  must  supply  the  gaps  and  interpret  the  dark 
passages.  But  how  shall  it  do  this  without  some 
theory  or  working  hypothesis  ? 

Take  a  concrete  illustration.  Let  a  primitive  his- 
torian first  look  at  the  pyramids  in  Egypt.  Evi- 
dently they  offer  to  his  understanding 

Illustration. 

many  puzzling  problems.  First  of  all, 
how  did  they  originate  ?  The  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion would  depend  almost  altogether  on  his  view  of 
how  other  things  of  the  same  general  sort  originate. 
If  his  theory  regarding  the  origin  of  these  should  be 
that  they  grew  in  the  course  of  ages,  he  would  con- 
clude that  the  pyramids  also  grew.  If  his  view 
were  that  human  beings  built  them  he  would  con- 
clude, in  spite  of  the  apparent  impossibility  of  the 
work,  that  human  beings  had  built  the  pyramids  also. 


138  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

But  if  his  view  were  that  works  of  the  size  and 
character  of  these  could  not  possibly  have  been  put 
together  by  human  beings,  he  might  be  led  to  infer 
that  a  race  of  beings  of  superior  strength  or  skill 
had  lived  there  and  erected  these  structures  for 
their  own  purposes.  This  is  not  an  imaginary  case, 
but  the  actual  theory  and  result  of  those  ancient 
Greek  historians  who  devised  the  theory  of  a  race 
of  Cyclopes  and  ascribed  a  system  of  peculiarities 
and  a  type  of  art  and  civilization  to  them  solely  on 
the  basis  of  a  postulate,  as  they  viewed  the  gigantic 
work  of  their  own  ancestors.  The  postulate  was 
that  those  works  could  not  have  been  contrived  by 
beings  as  weak  and  frail  as  themselves. 

But  if  presuppositions  or  postulates  are  unavoid- 
able, how  shall  the  critic  prevent  their  influencing 
classes  of  his  results  unduly  or  unfavorably  ? 
postulates.  In  Border  to  obtain  an  intelligent  and 
clear  view  of  the  situation  at  this  point,  let  us 
inquire,  first,  what  postulates  the  critic  is  most 
tempted  to  take  to  his  task.  Evidently  there  are 
two  classes  of  these,  /*.  e.,  the  philosophical  and  the 
historical.  The  first  class  consists  of  views  of  the 
universe — its  origin,  constitution,  and  government. 
The  second  class  consists  of  views  regarding  the 
nature  and  treatment  of  historic  evidence.  A  third 
class,  arising  from  the  nature  of  religious  belief,  and 
the  place  and  relation  of  religious  beliefs  to  critical 
results,  will  be  considered  separately  in  a  subsequent 
chapter.  The  postulates  of  the  other  two  classes 
may  be  taken  singly  or  in  combination  with  one 
another.  To  illustrate  the  attitude  of  mind  to  be 
maintained  by  the  critic  with  reference  to  them,  it 


POSTULATES.  139 

is  sufficient,  without  going  into  too  much  analysis,  to 
present  the  whole  effect  of  these  presuppositions  as 
forcing  him  into  one  or  another  standpoint.  The 
critic,  for  instance,  who  approaches  his  work  with 
that  philosophy  of  the  world  which  we  call  the 
pantheistic,  is  forced  into  a  position  with  reference 
to  critical  questions  which  should  be  Results  in 
called  the  pantheistic  standpoint;  and  standP°ints- 
thus  it  would  be  called,  were  it  found  as  a  stand- 
point into  which  pantheism  only  led.  But  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  as  already  indicated,  the  postulates 
with  which  we  are  dealing  exist  in  combinations,  and 
the  standpoints  into  which  they  drive  critics  are 
not  simple  but  complex.  They  may,  however,  be 
named,  from  their  predominating  principles,  either 
philosophical  or  historical,  as  follows  : 

I.  The  standpoint  of  naturalism. — The  principal 
and  differentiating  postulate  of  this  standpoint  is 
the  impossibility  of  the  supernatural.  j.  Naturalistic 
The  miraculous,  anywhere  and  under  8tandP°int- 
any  conditions,  is  incredible.  Accounts  of  the  super- 
natural arise  in  connection  with  the  early  history  of 
peoples  and  make  up  their  mythology.  All  early 
history  has  its  mythology,  and  all  mythology  must 
be  exscinded  from  the  sources  which  criticism  inves- 
tigates. This  is  the  very  task  of  criticism,  viz.,  to 
sift  out,  to  eliminate  the  impossible  and  incredible 
from  the  sources  of  history.  This  principle  is,  it 
is  claimed,  applied  with  rigor  and  vigor  in  the 
examination  of  all  other  sources  of  history,  and 
must  be  applied  in  the  Bible  also.  The  Bible, 
after  all,  according  to  the  critics  of  this  standpoint, 
is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  collection  of  the 


140  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

records  of  a  people  in  its  infancy,  and  must  be 
treated  like  all  the  earliest  records  of  other  peoples. 
It  is  one  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  East.  The 
Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead,  the  Hindoo  Vedas,  the 
Zend-Avesta  of  the  Persians,  the  mythologies  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  are  the  other  and  perfectly 
analogous  members  of  the  class  to  which  the  Biblical 
religion  and  history  belong.  Like  these  analogues 
the  Bible  must  be  subjected  to  the  same  process  of 
winnowing.  It  cannot  be  conceded  any  exemption 
from  the  philosophical  presuppositions  with  which 
the  student  of  comparative  religion  approaches  its 
sister  religions. 

Most  critics  of  this  standpoint  make  .no  secret 
of  their  approaching  the  task  with  presuppositions 
Baur-s   posi-    °^  tn^s  sort-     Thus  in  the  sphere  of 
tion>  New  Testament  criticism  F.  C.  Baur,* 

answering  the  charge  that  upon  the  principles  of 
his  school  of  criticism  all  that  is  supernatural  and 
miraculous  in  Christianity  would  disappear,  acknowl- 
edges that  such  would  be  the  case.  "This  is  cer- 
tainly the  tendency  of  the  historical  method  of 
treatment,  and  in  the  nature  of  things  it  can  have 
no  other.  Its  task  is  to  investigate  whatever  hap- 
pens under  the  relation  of  a  cause  and  effect;  but 
the  miracle,  in  its  absolute  sense,  dissolves  this 
natural  connection;  it  sets  a  point  at  which  it  is 
impossible,  not  for  want  of  satisfactory  information, 
but  altogether  and  absolutely  impossible,  to  regard 
the  one  thing  as  the  natural  consequence  of  the 
other.  But  how  were  such  a  point  demonstrable  ? 
Only  by  means  of  history.  Yet,  from  the  historical 

*  Die  Tiibinger  Schule,  1859,  p.  13. 


POSTULATES.  141 

point  of  view,  it  were  a  mere  begging  of  the  ques- 
tion to  assume  events  to  have  happened  contrary 
to  all  the  analogy  of  history.  We  should  no  longer 
be  dealing  with  an  historical  question,  as  that  con- 
cerning the  orgin  of  Christianity  incontestably  is, 
but  with  a  purely  dogmatic  one,  that  of  the  con- 
ception of  a  miracle;  /.  <?.,  whether,  contrary  to  all 
historical  analogy,  it  is  an  absolute  requirement 
of  the  religious  consciousness  to  accept  partic- 
ular facts  as  miracles  in  the  absolute  sense." 

So  also  Kuenen,  in  a  sentence  now  become  fa- 
mous, "The  religion  of  Israel  is  for  us  one  of  the 
great  religions  of  the  world;  neither 

Kuenen's. 

more  nor  less.  These  statements 
may  be  taken  as  purely  a  priori  philosophical  state- 
ments, or  they  may  be  presented  as  the  results 
of  historical  investigation.  If  they  are  presented 
as  purely  philosophical  statements,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  they  constitute  a  bias  which  vitiates 
all  the  further  steps  of  the  criticism  that  bases 
itself  on  them.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  come 
as  the  results  of  historical  induction,  then  the 
question  arises,  How  broad  was  that  induction  1 
Science  has  too  often  been  made  the  victim  of  nar- 
row inductions  to  be  easily  led  at  this  late  date, 
in  such  a  case  as  this.  Now,  when  this  test  is 
applied  to  the  principle  of  this  standpoint  as  above 
defined  by  these  two  representatives  of  naturalistic 
criticism  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  respect- 
ively, it  turns  out  to  be  a  groundless  assumption. 
Taking  the  positions  of  the  two  critics  separately, 
we  find  that  the  principle  of  Baur  is  apparently,  that 
if  historic  criticism  were  to  admit  the  supernatural 


142  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

it  would  be  compelled  to  deny  its  own  nature, 
which  is  the  examination  of  events  in  the  relation 
of  cause  and  effect.  But  evidently,  so  far  as  this  is 
more  than  a  mere  assertion,  it  amounts  simply  to  a 
definition  of  the  "historic  method,"  /'.  e.,  Baur's 
standpoint,  and  does  not  justify  the  exclusion  of 
that  class  of  phenomena  which  we  call  the  super- 
natural. Does  Baur  mean  that,  whenever  the  con- 
nection of  cause  and  effect  is  not  perceptible 
between  two  events,  the  historicity  of  the  second  is 
put  in  question  ?  Does  not  history  know  of  events 
without  number  whose  causes  it  has  never  dis- 
covered and  never  will  ?  In  his  zeal  to  give  a 
reason  for  excluding  this  class  of  facts  Baur  has 
made  his  rule  too  stringent;  it  will  exclude  other 
things  besides  miracles.  Besides,  miracle  does  not 
necessarily  dissolve  the  relation  between  cause  and 
effect.  The  more  recent  discussions  in  this  field 
take  for  granted  that  miracle  need  not  even  be  con- 
sidered as  the  suspension  or  contravention  of  law; 
that  it  may  be  simply  the  result  of  the  operation 
of  unknown  law.  Baur,  therefore,  cannot  base  his 
exclusion  of  the  supernatural  from  the  sphere  of 
historic  investigation  on  sufficient  grounds. 

The  same  weakness  is  discoverable  in  the  proce- 
dure of  Kuenen;  for,  as  Dr.  Beecher  has  shown,*  he 
has  dragged  into  his  premises  the  very  proposition 
which  he  set  out  to  prove  through  the  investi- 
gation. Had  he,  before  coming  to  the  conclusion 
that  "  the  religion  of  Israel  is  one  of  the  great 
religions  of  the  world,  neither  more  nor  less,"  made 
an  investigation  of  the  religion  of  Israel  in  and  for 

*  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  iii.  p.  703. 


POSTULATES.  143 

itself,  he  might  have  found  that  this  religion  was 
either  something  less  or  perhaps  something  more 
than  the  other  great  religions  of  the  world.  This 
exclusion,  then,  of  the  supernatural,  without  ade- 
quate investigation  of  it  by  methods  appropriate,  is 
unscientific. 

Results  attained  by  the  employment  of  the 
criticism  on  the  basis  of  these  assumptions  cannot 
have  the  value  which  results  reached  Results  un- 
by  the  use  of  purer  critical  processes  satisfactory- 
possess.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  critics  of  this 
standpoint  may  and  actually  have  contributed 
directly  and  indirectly  to  the  sum  of  the  critical 
work  done  in  recent  years,  but  it  is  only  after  the 
influence  of  their  philosophical  assumptions  has 
been  eliminated  that  the  contribution  has  found 
its  proper  place  in  the  net  result  of  the  work 
done. 

II.  The  standpoint  of  the  so-called  traditionalist. — 
The  characteristic  postulate  of  this  standpoint  is 
the  truth  of  the  views  held  in  the  past  n  Traditional, 
regarding  the  subjects  investigated  by  ist  standpoint, 
the  Higher  Criticism.  The  object  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  is  then  reduced  to  the  verifying  of  those 
views.  In  so  far  as  criticism  corroborates  these 
views  handed  down  by  tradition,  it  is  accepted  as  a 
legitimate  method  of  research;  but  in  so  far  as  it 
fails  to  accomplish  this  end,  it  is  discredited  as  a 
false  and  misleading  process.  The  critics  of  this 
school  have  been  called  traditionalists.  Whether 
there  are  any  true  traditionalists  in  this  strict  sense, 
at  least  among  experts,  is  questionable.  The  class 
is  a  possible  one;  and  it  is  alleged  by  the  critics  of 


144  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

the  other  standpoints  that  the  logical  principles 
underlying  the  use  of  the  Higher  Criticism  by  the 
critics  of  the  conservative  type  are  as  above  de- 
scribed. Some  even  go  to  the  extent  of  denying 
the  name  Higher  Critic  to  the  critics  of  the  con- 
servative school ;  on  the  ground,  it  is  to  be  presumed, 
of  their  limiting  the  use  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to 
the  extent  above  described.  Whatever  the  truth  as 
to  the  existence  of  any  large  number  of  experts  who 
would  openly  take  the  stand  that  tradition  should 
be  taken  into  criticism  as  a  postulate;  the  seductive- 
ness of  the  standpoint  to  the  ultra-conservative, 
and  the  natural  tendency  of  the  inexpert  to  gravi- 
tate toward  it,  render  it  proper  to  indicate  the 
Also  unsatis-  unreasonableness  of  the  presumption, 
factory.  Tradition  cannot  be  regarded  as  in- 

fallible in  this  field  any  more  than  in  any  other  field 
of  investigation.  That  tradition  possesses  a  certain 
value  we  shall  be  led  to  see  somewhat  later.  That 
there  are  different  sorts  of  traditions,  some  of  which 
are  more  valuable  than  others,  is  also  true.  There 
are  unbroken  traditions  that  carry  us  back  to  the 
very  times  and  circumstances  under  investigation, 
and  there  are  traditions  arising  in  dark  ages  and 
which  it  is  impossible  to  trace  to  any  responsible 
source.  To  deal  with  all  tradition  alike,  therefore, 
and  to  assign  to  all  the  highest  value,  is  entirely 
unscientific.  The  most  plausible  tradition  may  be 
based  on  a  mistake;  and  if  the  proper  use  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  can  point  out  the  mistake,  there 
will  be  gain  to  that  extent.  But  whether  this  should 
ever  prove  to  be  the  case  or  not,  the  mere  fact  of 
its  possibility  is  sufficient  to  brand  the  assumption 


POSTULATES.  145 

of  the  truth  of  tradition  as  a  postulate,  in  treating 
of  the  problems  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  as  a  viola- 
tion of  scientific  principles. 

III.  The-  standpoint  of  anti-traditionalism. — This 
differs  from  the  preceding  only  on  the  point  of  the 
validity  of  tradition  as  a  presumption 

.  •    .  III.    Anti- 

m  criticism.      In   other   respects  the    traditionalist 

.  standpoint. 

two  standpoints  are  in  perfect  har- 
mony. They  agree  first  of  all  in  putting  tradition 
outside  of  the  field  of  criticism  and  in  setting  it  over 
against  criticism.  They  differ  simply  as  to  the  value 
attached  antecedently  to  tradition.  According  to 
the  traditionalist  standpoint,  as  already  observed, 
this  is  much  greater  than  that  of  criticism  and  over- 
balances the  weight  of  the  latter.  According 
to  the  anti-traditionalist  standpoint,  on  the  con- 
trary, tradition  is  to  be  excluded  as  utterly  worth- 
less. And  this  not  as  a  part  of  the  investigation  of 
each  separate  question,  but  as  a  preliminary  and  a 
condition  to  any  and  all  investigation.  As  far  as 
external  evidence  is  concerned  in  dealing  with  these 
questions,  to  the  critics  of  this  school  it  does  not 
exist.  Even  as  applied  to  the  New  Testament  the 
Higher  Criticism  supersedes  external  testimony 
of  the  earliest  and  most  direct  kind.  One  of  the 
representative  exponents  of  this  standpoint  avers  : 
"  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  most  trustworthy 
information  that  we  have  regarding  the  origin  of 
the  greater  part  of  the  New  Testament  books  is  not 
to  be  credited  to  the  Christian  writers  who  lived 
sixty  to  one  hundred  years  after  they  were  written, 
but  to  the  historical  criticism  so  much  suspected  in 
some  quarters,  which  took  its  rise  seventeen  hun- 


146  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

dred  years  later."*     This  is  not  a  clear  committal 

to  the  principle  of  setting  aside  tradition  as  such. 

«     It  deals  rather  with  history  and  his- 

Wholesale  re- 
jection of   tra-    torical  testimony.     It  amounts  to  the 

dition.  .  .  ,  ,          . 

setting  aside  of  much  of  the  testi- 
mony derived  from  writers  of  the  first  "  sixty  to  one 
hundred  years  after  the  books  were  written;  but  if 
the  testimony  of  the  first  sixty  to  one  hundred  years  " 
after  the  composition  is  to  be  set  aside  as  of  little 
value  in  comparison  to  the  findings  of  the  criticism 
of  eighteen  hundred  years  later,  how  much  more  the 
force  of  traditions  that  can  only  be  traced  to  a  later 
period  than  the  first  sixty  to  one  hundred  years  ? 

When  applied  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  principle 
becomes  more  rigid  still.  The  term  tradition  in- 
cludes here  the  orally  delivered  opinions  of  the  pre- 
Christian  rabbis,  the  legends  of  the  Talmudists,  the 
titles  and  claims  found  in  the  books  themselves,  and 
the  statements  or  implications  of  the  New  Testament 
writers.  These  latter  are  considered  as  either  so 
put  as  not  to  commit  the  writers  to  any  special  views 
of  the  Old  Testament  books  or  else  worth  no  more 
nor  less  than  the  opinions  of  the  Jewish  rabbis. 
And  all  this  body  of  tradition  is  not  only  useless  in 
making  up  one's  results  on  critical  questions,  but 
cumbersome.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  an  obstacle  that 
blocks  the  way;  it  must  be  set  aside  if  the  critic 
would  make  any  further  progress.  At  any  rate  it 
cannot  help  the  critic  in  his  work.  "  If  the  questions 
which  the  Higher  Criticism  seeks  to  answer  cannot 
be  answered  by  its  methods,  then  there  is  no  answer 

*  Orello  Cone,  The  Gospel  and  its  Earliest  Interpretations, 
pp.  28,  29. 


POSTULATES.  147 

for  them  at  all. "  This  is  the  verdict  of  a  prominent 
advocate  of  this  standpoint.*  Thus  it  appears  that, 
as  far  as  philosophical  theories  concerning  the 
world  are  concerned,  or  the  possibility  or  proba- 
ability  of  the  supernatural,  the  nature 
and  history  of  religion  and  all  other 
kindred  matters,  these  standpoints  have  no  quarrel 
with  one  another.  It  is  only  on  the  single  point  of 
the  admission  of  tradition  as  a  source  of  informa- 
tion that  they  part  company;  the  one  insisting 
that  tradition  should  be  adopted  as  antecedently 
trustworthy,  and  the  other  that  it  should  be  ignored 
as  valueless  if  not  as  a  confusing  and  misleading 
factor  in  the  case. 

IV.  The  comprehensive  standpoint. — The  presump- 
tion here  is  that  all  evidence  has  some  value 
either  directly  or  indirectly.  All  evi- 

IV.    Compre- 

dence  must,  therefore,  be  carefully  hensive  stand- 
examined  and  sifted,  with  a  view  to 
solving  the  questions  arising  in  each  case.  Rela- 
tively speaking,  this  is  the  unbiased  standpoint.  It 
repudiates  the  philosophical  postulate  of  the  impossi- 
bility of  the  supernatural,  and  the  dogmatic  one  of 
its  acceptance  as  real  on  the  strength  of  the  reli- 
gious consciousness  and  the  alleged  necessity  of  it 
to  satisfy  this  religious  consciousness.  It  does 
not  allow  even  the  historically  established  postulate 
of  the  antecedent  improbability  of  the  miraculous 
to  prejudge  individual  cases;  it  refers  each  separate 
occurrence  of  the  miraculous  to  a  special  historical 
investigation. 

Tradition  also  is  neither  antecedently  paramount 
*  Francis  Brown  in  the  Homiletic  Review,  April,  1892. 


148  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

nor  valueless  or  burdensome.  The  question  of  the 
validity  or  value  of  any  individual  tradition,  accord- 
ing to  this  standpoint,  is  not  to  be  prejudiced  by 
the  suspiciousness  of  the  word  itself.  No  general 
principle  can  be  laid  down  as  to  the  amount  of 
credence  to  be  given  to  traditions.  The  critic  is  to 
settle  the  question  of  the  admissibility  and  value  of 
each  as  he  comes  to  it.  It  is  an  integral  part  of  the 
process  of  criticism.  In  fact  the  term  tradition, 
which  is  used  so  indiscriminately  by 

Discriminates    ...  .    . 

between  tradi-  both  the  antagonizing  schools  as  if 
its  meaning  were  simple  and  clear, 
stands  for  a  very  complex  and  variable  conception. 
There  is  a  tradition  that  is  absolutely  worthless 
because  it  is  manufactured  or  grows  among  the 
ignorant.  It  is  carelessly  disseminated,  and  changes 
as  it  passes  from  person  to  person  and  from  genera- 
tion to  generation.  It  becomes  more  striking  and 
marvelous  as  it  grows.  It  feeds  the  superstition  of 
those  who  accept  it  and  is  in  turn  fed  by  this  super- 
stition, and  thus  grows  to  stupendous  proportions. 
No  one  would  think  for  a  moment  of  ascribing  to 
this  sort  of  tradition  any  primary  historical  value. 
Its  only  use  must  be  that  of  illustrating  by  direct 
implication  or  contrast  the  character  of  the  times 
and  the  manners  of  those  among  whom  it  originates. 
But  there  are  traditions  of  a  kind  altogether 
different  from  those  of  this  type,  differing  from 
them  by  the  whole  diameter  of  historical  probability. 
These  are  accounts  of  facts  described  accurately 
by  eyewitnesses  or  contemporaries  and  attested  by 
signs  of  unmistakable  good  faith,  which  were  trans- 
mitted for  a  time  orally  and  then  written  down. 


POSTULATES.  149 

They  differ  very  little,  if  at  all,  from  first-hand  testi- 
mony. In  fact  the  difference  between  these  tradi- 
tions and  first-hand  testimony  is  one  of  formal  and 
not  of  essential  nature.  Between  these  two  classes 
of  traditions  there  may  be  an  indefinite  number  of 
varieties,  approaching  the  one  or  the  other  of  them 
respectively.  Some  subjects,  moreover,  have  been 
under  discussion  from  time  immemorial,  and  tradi- 
tions regarding  them  have  been  tested  and  verified 
by  each  successive  generation  of  students  interested 
in  them.  Such  traditions  evidently  gain  in  weight 
by  each  successive  examination.  Often  the  proc- 
esses of  examination  maybe  lost,  leaving  no  trace  be- 
hind them;  and  a  succeeding  generation  of  scholars, 
basing  itself  on  the  well-known  fact  of  the  verifica- 
tion of  these  traditions  by  their  predecessors,  may 
accept  them  as  true  without  hesitation.  Evidently, 
it  would  be  unjust  to  classify  such  scholars  with 
those  who  superstitiously  and  from  sheer  ignorance 
accept  untested  views  or  statements  coming  from 
ages  of  darkness.  The  only  common  feature  in 
these  varying  kinds  of  traditions  would  seem  to  be  the 
fact  that  they  all  in  the  first  place  are  transmitted 
or  given  over  by  their  originators  orally  to  a  body 
of  successors.  In  some  cases  they  are  transmitted 
orally;  but  in  others  they  are  written  down  and  fixed. 
It  is  the  part  of  sound  criticism  to  distinguish 
between  traditions  and  traditions;  to  test  each  as 
it  is  met;  to  allow  each  its  proper  force  and  bear- 
ing upon  the  results  of  the  investigation  on  hand. 
This  diversity  between  different  kinds  of  traditions 
will  make  an  &  priori  stand  on  them  as  a  class  an 
altogether  unscientific  procedure. 


150  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

This  diversity  further  makes  it  impossible  to 
determine  d,  priori  the  comparative  value  of  tradi- 
tional and  critical  evidence,  if  this  distinction  must 
be  made.  For  as  soon  as  the  character  of  the  evi- 
dence is  made  clear  enough  to  put  it  in  the  class 
"tradition  "  the  question  arises,  What  kind  of  tradi- 
tion? Is  it  a  tradition  of  the  highest  value  or  one 
of  the  lowest  ?  and  the  further  question,  With  what 
kind  of  critical  evidence  is  it  to  be  compared  or 
contrasted  ?  For  as  we  have  already  sufficiently 
indicated,  the  force  of  critical  considerations  is 
very  different;  and  to  rightly  estimate  each,  refer- 
ence must  be  had  to  its  own  peculiar  features  and 
bearings. 

Naturally,  tradition  forms  a  starting-point  in  in- 
vestigations where  it  exists.  Unless  it  is  absurd 

uses  of  tradi-  on  ^e  ^ace  °^  **>  or  self-contradictory, 
tion-  it  constitutes  a   working  hypothesis 

that  may  be  corroborated,  corrected,  or  disproved 
and  totally  set  aside.  As  a  starting-point,  more- 
over, tradition  may  be  conceded  a  certain  presump- 
tive right  to  stand.  Unless  the  testimony  against 
its  truth  be  established,  it  may  be  considered  true. 
It  has  been  already  intimated,  for  instance,  that 
the  term  tradition  in  the  case  of  the  Old  Testament 
books  includes  the  pre-Christian  beliefs  as  found 
outside  the  Bible,  the  claims  incorporated  in  the 
titles  of  the  books  themselves  as  well  as  the  claims 
which  crop  out  in  the  body  of  the  books,  and  the 
testimony  of  New  Testament  writers.  The  latter 
might  be  put  by  some  scholars  outside  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  tradition,  and  in  a  class  by  itself; 
but  as  such  a  classification  of  it  would  hardly  be 


POSTULATES.  151 

agreed  to  by  all  critics,  it  may  safely  be  placed  in 
the  class,  traditions.  For,  although  it  may  be  more 
than  tradition,  and  to  some  it  has  that  force  which 
makes  it  more,  it  is  at  least  a  part  of  tradition. 
But  however  that  may  be,  the  views  contained  in 
these  traditions  constitute  a  starting-point  for 
critical  investigation;  and  the  presumption  is  that 
they  are  true  until  overbalancing  considerations 
demonstrate  their  untenableness. 

If  all  this  be  true,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the 
proper  postulates  of  the  Higher  Criticism  are  not 
to  be  found  either  in  the  assumption 

1  Conclusion. 

of  the  impossibility  of  the  supernatural, 
the  irrefragability  of  tradition,  or  the  valueless- 
ness  of  the  same,  but  in  the  admissibility  of  all 
evidence  bearing  upon  the  questions  it  treats  as 
evidence  to  be  sifted  and  verified  before  it  is 
allowed  to  influence  the  conclusion. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

DOCTRINAL    ASPECTS   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

THE   relations   of  the   Higher  Criticism   to   the 
religious  teachings  of  the  Bible  must  be,  from  the 
Power  of  the   nature  of  the  case,  of  the  utmost  im- 
onbmen?3epopnins-  portance.     The    Bible   is  a   religious 
ions  of  u.  book  and  has  been  the  source  of  in- 

calculable religious  thought,  feeling,  and  work.  It 
has  produced  some  most  remarkable  effects  on  the 
world;  and  it  has  produced  these  results  because  it 
has  been  believed  to  be,  or  at  any  rate  to  contain, 
the  authoritative  expression  of  God's  will  regard- 
ing the  conduct  of  man  on  earth.  If  it  had  been 
believed  to  be  anything  less,  it  is  reasonably  certain 
that  these  results  would  not  have  been  produced 
by  it.  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance,  therefore, 
to  its  effectiveness  that  it  should  be  accepted  at 
least  as  authoritatively  as  it  has  been.  What  men 
believe  it  to  be  is  an  essential  condition  of  its 
accomplishing  what  it  has  and  can  accomplish. 
The  question  then  resolves  itself  into  this:  How 
does  the  application  of  the  Higher  Criticism  affect 
the  beliefs  of  men  regarding  the  Bible  ?  To  answer 
this  question  it  will  be  necessary  to  revert  to  the 
definition  of  the  objects  aimed  at  by  the  Higher 
Criticism.  These,  it  has  been  said,  are  the  deter- 
mination of  the  origin,  literary  form,  and  value  of 
152 


DOCTRINAL    ASPECTS.  153 

writings.  The  mere  statement  of  these  objects 
will  suffice  to  show  that  change  of  view  on  any  of 
them  will,  at  least  indirectly,  change  men's  view  of 
the  Bible.  The  questions  of  origin  and  value  are 
especially  apt  to  be  of  cardinal  im- 

J  Origin  of  books 

portance.  What  does  the  Higher  ref£rr?d  to  man 
Criticism  lead  to  as  regards  the  origin 
of  the  Bible  or  its  separate  books  ?  Are  they  divine, 
or  are  they  products  of  human  activity  only  ?  They 
may  be  either,  or  both  combined.  The  easiest  and 
most  common  answer  would  very  probably  be  that 
they  are  the  result  of  God's  work  and  man's;  that 
they  are  God's  work  working  through  men.  But  if 
so,  Is  the  divine  activity  recognizable  through  the 
Higher  Criticism  ?  or  is  it  to  be  relegated  to  the 
domain  of  faith  ?  If  the  latter,  the  still  more  per- 
plexing problem  arises,  how  far  the  belief  that  the 
Bible  is  a  divine  production,  at  least  in  part,  should 
be  allowed  to  enter  in  and  affect  the  results  of 
criticism  ?  It  is  possible,  in  the  first  place,  to  carry 
this  belief  into  the  critical  investigation  as  an  & 
priori  presupposition;  it  is  possible,  in  the  second 
place,  to  hold  it  as  a  hypothesis  and  correct  or  set 
it  aside,  as  the  results  of  the  investigation  may 
indicate.  It  is  possible,  in  the  third  place,  to  put  it 
aside  .before  entering  on  the  investigation,  in  order 
to  proceed  with  the  investigation  altogether  untram- 
meled.  Each  of  these  possibilities  is  adopted  as  the 
proper  course  to  be  pursued.  And  on  the  course 
taken  depends,  to  a  great  extent,  the  sum  of  the 
results  found.  If  the  critic  carry  his  beliefs  in  the 
divine  origin  of  a  Biblical  book  into  his  work,  he 
must  needs  allow  his  views  of  the  nature  of  God  and 


154  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

his  relations  to  the  world  to  influence  him  as  he 
labors.  If  he  refuse  to  take  this  belief  with  him,  he 
may  reach  results  inconsistent  or  contradictory  to 
what  can  be  proved  true  upon  other  than  critical 
grounds.  What  he  ought  to  do  we  do  not  propose 
to  say  at  this  point;  our  object  just  now  is  to  show 
that  any  investigation  into  the  origin  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible  is  involved  in  a  network  of  religious 
principles.  It  is  idle  to  assert  that  the  Bible  will 
hold  the  same  place  in  the  estimation  of  men,  what- 
ever the  results  of  criticism  may  be  as  to  its  origin. 

But  if  the  investigation  of  the  question  of  origin 
is  full  of  significance  for  religious  views  and  re- 

Verdict     on  ligious  views  are  full  of  significance 

value  important.    f()r  ^  much  m()re  {&  thig  the  cage  wkh 

the  investigation  of  the  question  of  the  value  of 
the  books  of  the  Bible.  A  distinction  may  be,  and 
is  often  made,  between  the  religious  and  moral 
elements  of  the  Bible  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
pragmatic  or  historical  and  scientific  elements  on 
the  other.  The  distinction  exists  in  reality.  The 
historical  value  of  a  writing — its  credibility — is  easily 
separable  from  its  religious  value — its  authoritative- 
ness  as  a  source  of  information  regarding  the  nature 
and  will  of  God.  But,  upon  closer  examination,  the 
distinction  thus  established  proves  of  much  less 
practical  worth  than  we  would  have  supposed  ante- 
cedently. It  is  extremely  difficult,  not  to  say  impos- 
sible, so  to  disassociate  these  two  aspects  of  the 

value  of  a  book  as  to  preserve  the  re- 
Author's 
character  gives    ligious  value  unimpaired  while  giving 

value. 

up    historical    trustworthiness.       The 
religious  value  of  a  writing  depends  in  part,  at  least, 


DOCTRINAL    ASPECTS.  155 

on  the  authority,  as  a  religious  teacher,  of  its  writer; 
this  authority,  in  its  turn,  depends  on  the  moral 
earnestness  and  sincerity  of  the  man.  And  by  this 
we  mean  not  the  actual  perfection  of  character 
attained  by  him,  but  the  purity  of  his  motives  and 
sincerity  of  his  conduct;  it  is  not  necessary  that  a 
man  should  be  free  from  human  weakness  in  order 
to  occupy  the  position  of  a  moral  and  religious 
teacher.  But  if  we  know  a  man  to  be  corrupt  or 
insincere,  no  matter  how  exalted  his  teachings,  we 
are  apt  not  to  attach  to  them  the  same  force  that  we 
do  to  the  utterances  of  a  consistent  and  earnest 
teacher.  The  conclusion  is  unavoidable  in  such  a 
case  that  our  teacher  has  learned  the  lessons  he  is 
attempting  to  teach  us  by  rote;  that  he  is  simply 
repeating  them  to  us  in  a  parrotlike  fashion  without 
understanding  their  bearings;  but  if  so,  we  scarcely 
feel  like  trusting  his  competency.  Or  else,  perhaps, 
he  does  understand  the  deep  meaning  of  these 
teachings,  but  is  convinced  that  they  are  not  true; 
and  if  so,  how  shall  he  rouse  in  us  a  desire  to  do  the 
things  he  recommends  or  believe  in  the  validity  of 
the  principles  he  advocates  ?  With  such  an  estimate 
of  the  teacher  we  discount  the  teaching.  tA  man 
may,  of  course,  have  a  keen  sense  of  the  moral  and 
religious  value  of  the  truth  in  general,  or  of  some 
truth  in  particular,  and  no  historic  sense;  he  may 
be  able  to  reproduce  a  moral  and  religious  principle 
with  accuracy  and  force,  and  unable  to  give  a  his- 
torical account  without  unconsciously  introducing 
into  it  many  inaccuracies.  He  will  certainly  not  be 
charged  with  lack  of  moral  earnestness  or  sincerity 
if  such  are  known  to  be  his  temperament  and 


156  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

capacity.  But  let  it  be  proved  that  he  intentionally 
falsifies  records,  misrepresents  facts,  and  doctors 
Fraudulent  in-  accounts  in  order  to  secure  partizan 

tention  detracts.   Qr     individual     endg>     and      the     sphere 

of  his  weakness  is  removed  from  the  historical  to 
the  ethico-religious  side.  The  value  of  his  teaching 
is  at  once  reduced.  If  the  author  has  no  regard  for 
the  moral  law  as  it  touches  truthfulness,  we  argue 
unconsciously,  How  shall  we  be  sure  that  he  has  any 
regard  for  the  moral  law  in  other  particulars  ? 

An  answer  may  be  and  is  made  to  this  question  as 

follows  :  We  must  use  our  moral  and  religious  sense 

Truth  does  not  ^n  determining  when  our  instructor  in 

hinge    on    its  these  matters  is  right  and  trustworthy, 

intrinsic      force  * ' 

only-  and  when  he  is  not.     After  all,  it  is 

often  said,  it  is  the  validity  of  the  teaching  which 
appeals  to  our  own  moral  natures  and  gives  it  power 
with  us,  and  not  the  character  of  the  teacher 
as  an  individual.  This  answer  is  unsatisfactory  in 
making  the  acceptance  of  truth  hinge  altogether  on 
its  intrinsic  and  self-evidencing  force.  That  men 
accept  the  truth  partly  because  they  recognize  it  as 
such  at  first  sight  is  not  to  be  denied.  But  they 
also  accept  the  truth  often  on  the  strength  of 
the  authority  of  teachers  in  whom  they  have  con- 
fidence. When  the  truth  expressed  is  simple,  funda- 
mental, and  practical,  the  reason  perceives  it 
directly.  But  when  it  is  complex  and  theoretic,  the 
average  reason  finds  it  impossible  to  analyze  and 
test  its  parts.  It  simply  wishes  to  know  whether 
the  teacher  who  enunciates  it  has  made  the  analysis 
and  tested  and  proved  his  teaching  to  be  valid. 
When  satisfied  of  this,  the  reason  accepts  a  complex 


DOCTRINAL    ASPECTS.  157 

presentation  on  the  authority  of  the  teacher.  To 
accept  this  authority  is  not  to  renounce  the  right  of 
private  judgment  or  to  act  contrary  to  reason  or 
without  reason.  Rather  is  it  to  act  in  accordance 
with  reason.  The  reason  is,  after  all,  the  ultimate 
arbiter  as  to  whether  the  authority  of  the  teacher 
shall  be  accepted  or  not.  Christians  have  always 
accepted  teachings  from  prophets  and  apostles 
because  their  reason  has  taught  them  these  persons 
have  been  in  some  manner  constituted  authoritative 
teachers;  and  part  of  their  credential  is  their  trust- 
worthiness as  individuals,  and  another  part  the 
agreement  of  the  fundamental  truth  in  their  message 
with  the  sound  moral  judgment  of  mankind.  To 
make  the  latter  the  only  test  is  unsatisfactory,  as  it 
raises  us  at  a  single  bound  from  the 

,  ,       ,  ,  Human  reason, 

position  of  learners  at  the  feet  of  our  fallible  stand- 
moral  and  religious  teachers  into  that 
of  judges  and  critics  of  their  teaching.  While  we 
must  be  this  in  truths  of  simple,  fundamental,  and 
practical  character,  we  cannot  do  it  with  reference 
to  complex  and  recondite  matters.  If  man  had  an 
ideal  moral  nature,  healthy  and  normal  in  every 
way,  and  only  lying  dormant,  awaiting  the  stimulus 
of  a  presentation  of  truth,  to  be  so  awakened  as  to  see 
unerringly  the  truth  or  falsehood  in  every  detail  of 
representations  made  to  him,  to  select  and  adopt  the 
true  and  reject  the  false,  this  view  might  have  been 
considered  correct.  But  the  above  described  ideal 
is  far  from  being  the  actual  state  of  human  nature. 
The  truth  is  rather  that  a  careful  induction  of  the 
facts  regarding  our  moral  nature  shows  it  to  be  a 
very  fallible  guide,  practically  and  as  a  whole.  The 


158  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

moral   and   spiritual   nature   needs   guidance  from 

above.     It  needs  the  communication  of  knowledge 

regarding  God  and   his  will  which  it 

Needs  guidance.  ,  .          .. 

does  not  possess.  Neither  can  it  tell 
instantly  and  unerringly  that  which  is  true  from 
that  which  is  not.  Its  power  of  recognizing  the 
divine  is  impaired.  Like  the  bodily  sight  when  it 
has  become  diseased,  it  may  serve  as  a  guide  in 
general,  but  it  is  liable  to  mislead ;  it  needs  a  cor- 
rective and  preservative,  a  standard,  a  body  of 
ethico-religious  truth,  whose  truth  as  a  whole  will  be 
Rule  of  faith  :  a  guarantee  of  the  truth  of  its  parts, 
objective.  This  is  given  in  an  objective  revelation 

of  the  divine  will.  Only  such  a  revelation  could 
escape  the  danger  of  being  called  into  question  by 
every  sin-blinded  moral  nature,  and  curtailed  or 
modified  to  suit  the  dwarfed  or  distorted  moral 
judgment.  Such  a  revelation  could  be  given 
through  accredited  messengers  of  God.  If  it  be 
assumed  that  it  has  been  given,  it  must  follow  that 
the  tests  of  its  validity  must  be  partly,  at  least, 
objective;  consisting  in  the  character  of  the  mes- 
senger and  the  signs  of  God's  presence  with  him 
along  with  the  divinity  of  his  message,  attesting 
itself  to  the  spiritual  sense  of  men.  It  is  not  the 
verisimilitude  of  the  alleged  revelation  alone,  but 
its  effect  on  the  human  vehicle  and  the  other  mani- 
festations of  its  delivery  that  constitute  the  adequate 
witness  of  the  objective  revelation.  The  means 
through  which  God  gives  his  word  must  be  adequate. 
Some  one  has  said  truly,  "Even  God  cannot  make 
a  six-inch  stream  of  water  run  through  a  four-inch 
pipe."  Neither  is  the  moral  nature  of  man  like  the 


DOCTRINAL   ASPECTS.  159 

glazed  surface  of  the  interior  of  a  metal  pipe,  which 
allows  the  stream  to  go  over  it  without  leaving  a 
trace  on  it;  but  rather  like  the  soil  along  the  banks 
of  the  river,  which  is  enriched  and  fertilized  by  the 
touch  of  the  stream.  To  carry  the  simile  a  step 
further,  it  is  not  by  seeing  the  stream  that  we  know 
the  fulness  of  its  content  and  the  quality  of  its 
water,  but  also  by  noting  the  effects  attending  its 
passage  through  its  channels.  Thus,  while  the 
force  of  a  moral  truth  is  inherent,  and  does  not 
depend  on  its  utterer,  its  value  is  much  affected  by 
the  character  of  the  man  by  whom  it  is  presented 
for  the  acceptance  of  men. 

To  say  then  that  the  findings  of  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism should  not  affect  the  religious  faith  of  men  is 
to   use   language  loosely,    or    else  to 
take  a  superficial  view  of  the  case.     If    affects  form  of 

.  . ,  faith. 

the  religious  faith  of  men  is  built  upon 
the  content  of  given  documents,  and  the  content  of 
those  documents  be  proved  either  partly  or  in  whole 
worthless,  it  must  needs  follow  that  the  faith  be 
reconstructed  after  the  proof  has  been  established. 
The  extent  of  the  reconstruction  may  be  large  or 
small;  it  may  amount  to  a  slight  revision  or  a  com- 
plete revolution;  it  may  be  nothing  but  the  elimi- 
nation of  unreal  features  from  Christianity;  or  may 
be  the  surrender  of  its  distinctive  features,  reducing 
it  to  a  mere  natural  religion.  This  last  is  certainly 
possible.  The  religious  or  doctrinal  bearings  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  cannot  be  a  matter  of  indifference 
to  the  man,  no  matter  what  he  may  think  as  a 
scholar. 

Our  reasoning  thus  far  has  led  us  to  the  conclu- 


160  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

sion  that  the  Higher  Criticism  cannot  help  affecting 

the  forms  at  least  of  religious  belief,  and  may  affect 

its    substance.      Now     the     problem 

Criticism 

comes  after  thus  raised  would  have  a  very  sim- 
ple solution,  if  the  Higher  Criticism 
could  have  occupied  from  the  beginning  what  would 
appear  its  natural  place  as  an  introduction  and  prep- 
aration for  the  use  of  the  Bible.  Religious  belief 
built  on  the  Bible  would  in  such  a  case  have  been 
subsequent  to  the  examination  of  the  Bible  by  the 
methods  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  But  this  simple 
condition  of  things  does  not,  unfortunately,  exist. 
The  Bible  has  been  used  for  millenniums.  On  the 
ground  of  its  authoritativeness  as  a  source  there 
has  been  elaborated  a  system  of  belief.  This  system 
of  belief  is  accepted  by  many  as  true.  Not  simply 
because  of  the  fact  that  it  is  built  of  materials 
furnished  by  the  Bible,  but  because  of  its  beneficent 
results  and  its  adaptation  to  human  needs  and  its 
appeal  to  the  human  heart,  it  is  received  as  the 
truth.  Now  comes  the  Higher  Criticism  with  a 
demand  for  a  hearing  on  the  validity  and  value  of 
the  sources  of  this  faith.  It  claims  to  have  an 
important  message  regarding  these.  When  the 
message  is  heard,  it  is  found  that  it  consists  in  asser- 
tions inconsistent  with  the  authoritativeness  of  the 
sources.  Of  course,  if  this  message  be  true,  no  harm 
can  come  from  its  acceptance.  And  even  were  the 
absurd  supposition  to  be  entertained  that  harm 
could  come  of  accepting  the  truth,  it  would  still  be 
a  duty  to  receive  it  rather  than  cling  to  error  for 
the  sake  of  its  beneficent  results.  No  one  can  too 
strenuously  insist  on  loyalty  to  the  truth.  But  is 


DOCTRINAL   ASPECTS.  l6l 

the  message  of  the  Higher  Criticism  true  ?  How 
shall  that  question  be  answered  ?  Here  critics 
again  divide  into  two  schools.  On  verdicts  com- 
one  side  stand  those  who  reduce  all  pared  with  faith- 
religious  belief  into  subjection  unto  reason,  and  on 
the  other  those  who  have  accepted  what  they 
believe  the  Bible  teaches  as  the  truth.  They  con- 
cede that  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  has  its  mysteries 
which  cannot  be  reduced  to  the  form  of  reason,  but 
they  claim  that  this  fact  does  not  render  these 
mysteries  irrational.  The  former  of  these  schools 
is  commonly  called  the  rationalistic,  the  latter  the 
evangelical  school  of  criticism. 

I.  The  Rationalistic  School. — The  term  rational- 
istic needs  a  word  of  explanation.  It  is  in  danger 
like  most  much  used  words  of  being 

Methods  of 

variously  applied  and  of  thus  leading  correlation : 

'    I.  Rationalism. 

into  confusion.  There  are  rationalists 
and  rationalists.  A  rationalist  is  sometimes  under- 
stood to  be  one  who  rejects  the  supernatural  upon 
philosophical  grounds.  The  rationalistic  stand- 
point, accepting  this  definition  of  it,  is  a  philosophi- 
cal one,  and  has  been  considered  under  the  subject 
of  the  possible  philosophical  postulates  assumed  in 
using  the  Higher  Criticism.  But  a  rationalist  is 
often  supposed  to  be  one  who  uses  the  reason  in 
interpreting  away  the  miraculous  from  the  scriptural 
narratives  by  substituting  some  naturalistic  expla- 
nation in  every  case.  According  to  this  conception 
of  the  term,  only  he  is  a  rationalist  who  reduces  the 
content  of  the  Bible  into  the  forms  Meaning  of 
that  can  be  conceived  and  traced  out  the  word- 
by  the  reason.  Such  rationalists  were  Paulus  and 


162  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Semler  in  the  last  century,  and  Strauss  and  his  fol- 
lowers in  the  present.  Others,  however,  take  a 
broader  view  of  the  term  and  include  under  it  the 
use  of  the  reason  in  almost  any  form.  Those  who 
attempt  to  harmonize  differing  or  inconsistent 
accounts,  according  to  this  view  of  it,  belong  to  the 
category  of  rationalists,  because  they  use  the  reason 
in  the  same  sense  and  manner  as  those  who  would 
give  a  merely  naturalistic  explanation  of  things 
apparently  supernatural.  Usage  has  thus  fluctu- 
ated. It  would  be  a  gain,  because  it  would  conduce 
toward  clearness  of  thought,  if  the  term  could  be 
applied  only  to  systems  in  which  the  reason  is  either 
the  only  or  the  supreme  authority  in  matters  of 
religion.  And  by  reason,  in  this  connection,  it  were 
well  to  understand  not  the  whole  intelligent  nature  of 
man,  but  specifically  those  faculties  through  the  use 
of  which  he  consciously  reaches  conclusions.  This 
supremacy  of  reason  exercised  in  the  sphere  of  the  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture  would  constitute  the  ration- 
alism of  Semler  and  Paulus;  exercised  in  the  sphere 
that  precedes  interpretation,  /'.  <?.,  the  sphere  of 
criticism,  it  constitutes  the  rationalism  of  the  school 
of  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen.  In  the  former  case 
the  task  of  reason  is  assumed  to  consist  in  reducing 
everything  to  the  forms  which  it  can 

In  exegesis.  . 

grasp  and  trace  out;  in  the  latter  m 
allowing  no  share  or  weight  to  the  faith  which  the 
Bible  creates  in  man;  in  helping  make  up  results  as 

to  the  origin,  nature,  and  value  of  its 

la  criticism.  ,        ... 

books.  This  is  the  work  of  criticism, 
and  faith  has  no  share  in  making  nor  power  to 
modify  the  result  of  criticism.  This  rationalism 


DOCTRINAL    ASPECTS.  163 

consists,  in  other  words,  in  disregarding  the  reli- 
gious character  of  the  Bible.  While,  however,  these 
two  forms  of  rationalism  are  to  be  recognizable  as 
distinct,  they  are  not  practically  separable  from  one 
another.  The  rationalistic  critic  is  apt  to  be-  a 
rationalistic  interpreter  as  he  leaves  the  sphere  of 
criticism  and  enters  that  of  interpretation;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  rationalistic  interpreter  readily 
becomes  a  rationalistic  critic  when  he  attempts  the 
functions  of  the  critic. 

Limiting  our  attention  just  now  to  the  rational- 
istic criticism,  we  may  notice  that  it  is  unscientific 
because  it  leaves  out  of  consideration  itiaunscien- 
a  large  amount  of  the  evidence  at 
hand ;  it  refuses  to  recognize  in  the  religious  con- 
victions produced  by  the  Bible  a  valid  test  of  the 
origin  and  value  of  it.  The  exception  to  be  taken 
to  this  mode  of  procedure  is  not  that  it  resorts  to 
the  employment  of  the  reason.  The  reason  must 
have  a  share,  and  a  large  share,  in  the  search  for 
answers  to  the  questions  involved.  It  may  be  even 
said  that  the  reason  must  alone  carry  on  the  investi- 
gation, because  the  facts  are  such  as  can  only  be  dealt 
with  by  the  reason.  But  the  objection  is  that  it 
makes  the  reason  the  only  source  and  test  of  truth. 
While  the  religious  faith  may  not  lead  to  any  answer 
as  to  the  human  origin  of  any  given  literary  work — 
as  it  is  not  expected  to  do  and  does  not  pretend  to 
do — it  may  still  prove  a  very  valuable  means  of 
verifying  or  checking  results  otherwise 

,      ,         T,   ,,.     ,   ...    .  Makes  human 

reached.     If  this  faith  is  not  a  source  nature  seir-con- 

i       -LI  T     j-         ^1         tradictory. 

it  may  be  a  valuable  test.     Indirectly, 

at  least,    the   character    of   that  which   has   been 


164  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

constructed  out  of  the  Bible  cannot  but  have  its 
scientific  value  in  the  determination  of  the  origin 
and  value  of  the  Bible.  To  take  the  opposite 
ground  is  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  contradiction 
by  one  part  of  human  nature  of  what  has  been  found 
true  in  another.  For  if  man  by  the  exercise  of  one 
part  of  his  nature  has  accepted  the  religious  faith 
built  out  of  the  Bible  as  true;  and  another  part  of 
him — the  reason,  in  the  narrower  sense — proves  that 
those  materials  are  of  no  value,  there  arises  a  con- 
tradiction. And  the  rationalistic  standpoint  allows 
no  room  for  the  removal  of  this  contradiction.  It 
ignores  it  altogether.  Hence  its  unscientific  and 
unsatisfactory  character. 

II.  The  Evangelical  School  of  criticism. — The  chief 
characteristic  of  this  school  is  the  acceptance  of 

ii  Evan  eli-  t'ie  evangencal  faith  as  true.  This 
calism-  includes  the  acceptance  of  Jesus 

Christ  as  an  infallible  teacher.  On  what  grounds 
this  acceptance  is  based  it  is  not  necessary  to  say. 
It  is  enough  to  note  that  these  grounds  are  inde- 
pendent of  criticism,  and  that  the  arbiter  of  their 
validity  is  in  the  ultimate  analysis  the  same  reason, 
(using  that  term  now  in  its  broad  sense  as  the  equiva- 
lent of  the  whole  intelligent  nature  of  man)  to  which 
criticism  makes  its  appeal.  While,  therefore,  the 
acceptance  of  this  evangelical  basis  is  extra-critical, 
it  is  not  extra-rational.  But,  however  that  may  be, 

Faith  based  on  tne  evangelical  critic  does  not  consider 
good  reasons.  that  a  conclusion  reached  by  purely 
critical  methods,  and  having  less  than  a  demonstra- 
tive force,  is  completely  established  until  its  con- 
sistency with  the  evangelical  faith  has  been  made 


DOCTRINAL    ASPECTS.  165 

clear.  He  does  not  allow  himself  to  rest  in  merely 
holding  his  faith  and  his  critical  results  apart  from 
each  other,  but  tries  to  correlate  them.  As  soon  as 
he  refuses  to  correlate  them,  he  ceases  being  an 
evangelical  critic  and  becomes  an  evangelical,  per- 
haps, in  faith  who  holds  to  rationalistic  critical  re- 
sults. The  evangelical  standpoint  is  thus  different 
from  the  rationalistic,  and  yet  not  exactly  its  re- 
verse. For  while  the  rationalist  would  make 
reason  determine  all  questions,  and  take  no  con- 
cern regarding  the  religious  bearings  of  the  results, 
the  evangelical  would  use  the  reason  but  refer, 
measure,  and  rectify  the  results  by  a  principle 
adopted  independently  of  the  reason  as  used  by  the 
rationalist.  To  do  this  is  not,  in  his  view,  un- 
reasonable or  contrary  to  reason,  because,  as  above 
said,  he  has  found  the  adoption  of  his  faith  a  highly 
reasonable  proceeding.  If  any  system  of  philosophy 
or  criticism  seems  to  lead  him  back  to  the  state  of 
mind  when  he  had  not  this  faith  it  is  reasonable,  he 
thinks,  that  he  should  demand  that  the  considera- 
tions which  support  it  shall  have  at  least  equal  force 
to  the  reasons  that  have  led  him  to  adopt  the  faith. 
Otherwise  he  would  be  abandoning  that  which  rests 
on  the  stronger  foundations  for  that  which  rests  on 
the  weaker.  If  he  is  persuaded  that  pure  criticism 
does  not  as  a  method  of  research  lead  to  indisputable 
results — results,  that  is  to  say,  having  the  force  and 
stability  of  demonstrated  truth — as  a  mere  matter 
of  intellectual  importance,  he  will  wish  for  verifi- 
cations. But  he  has  already  adopted  Critical  views 
his  faith  as  a  matter  of  vital  moment  Tests- 
to  him;  it  has  an  irrefragable  force  in  his  estimation; 


l66  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

he  must  therefore  certainly  take  the  attitude  of  one 
who  has  the  means  of  testing,  modifying,  correct- 
ing, and  even  rejecting  merely  conjectural  results. 
Only  thus  can  he  be  rational  and  loyal  to  what  he 
holds  to  be  the  truth  and  to  have  the  force  of  some- 
thing more  than  conjecture. 

If  the  above  be  assumed  to  be  the  working  basis 

of  the  evangelical  critic,  it  becomes  a   matter  of 

the  utmost  importance,  before  going 

Essentials  of 

evangelical  further,  to  inquire  what  this  evangeli- 
cal faith  is  which  shall  play  such  a 
part  in  the  case.  The  evangelical  faith  has  been 
defined  in  the  bases  of  agreement  of  such  institu- 
tions as  the  Evangelical  Alliance  and  the  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association.  The  basis  of  the 
former  is  especially  clear.  It  sums  up  the  articles 
of  agreement  in  the  following:  the  divine  inspira- 
tion, authority,  and  sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures; the  right  of  private  judgment  in  interpreting 
the  Scriptures;  the  unity  of  the  Godhead,  and  the 
trinity  of  persons  therein;  the  natural  depravity  of 
man;  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  his  atone- 
ment for  sinners,  and  his  mediatorial  intercession 
and  reign;  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  re- 
generation and  sanctification  of  the  sinner;  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul;  the  resurrection  of  the  body; 
the  general  judgment  of  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ; 
the  reward  of  the  righteous  and  the  punishment 
of  the  impenitent;  the  divine  institution  of  the 
Christian  ministry;  and  the  obligation  and  per- 
petuity of  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper. 
Of  this  creed  it  is  evident  that  only  two  articles 


DOCTRINAL    ASPECTS.  I&7 

come  into  direct  contact  with  criticism.  These  are 
the  articles  defining  the  origin  and  nature  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  nature  and  authority  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  relation  of  these  two  points  to  critical  views 
cannot  be  the  same,  though  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  it  must  be  similar. 

The  acceptance  of  Jesus  Christ  as  an  absolute 
and  final  authority  on  whatever  he  uttered  as  a 
teacher  involves  the  rejection  of  every  ,esug  christ 
view  which  contradicts  this  authority.  final  authority. 
If  it  be  proved  that  Jesus  expressed  a  definite  view 
regarding  even  the  human  origin  of  an  Old  Testa- 
ment book,  that  is  an  end  of  controversy  to  the 
evangelical.  The  ground  of  investigation  is  thus 
shifted  into  a  different  field.  It  becomes  a  question 
of  interpretation  whether  Jesus  committed  himself 
to  any  views  on  these  questions  or  not.  Here  the 
evangelical  or  Christian  school  of  criticism  divides 
into  two  wings;  the  one  holding  to  the  theory  that 
Jesus  believed  the  views  respecting  Two  ,  of 
the  origin  and  nature  of  the  Old  evangelicalism. 
Testament  books  to  be  true  which  were  held  by  the 
rabbis  of  his  generation,  and  that  he  indorsed  and 
taught  those  views;  the  other  wing  holds,  on  the 
contrary,  that  Jesus  used  these  views  as  a  basis  for 
his  moral  and  religious  teaching  and  work,  but  did 
not  commit  himself  to  their  truth  either  in  detail  or 
even  in  the  main  outlines.  In  the  positions  taken 
by  both  of  these  wings  of  evangelical  criticism,  the 
most  important  elements  are  the  presupposed  as- 
sumptions. There  are  at  least  two  of  these  in 
each  case. 

What  we  may    call   the   right   wing — i.  e.,    that 


l68  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

which  holds  that  Jesus  is  committed  to  the  tradi- 
tional views — works  upon  the  assumptions  that  the 
language  of  Jesus  is  to  be  interpreted 

Differences:          .    °       s  T  / 

i.  The  right      rigidly  or  without   allowance  for  ac- 

wincr 

commodation  to  popular  intelligence, 
or  the  preparation  of  mind  necessary  for  the  most 
precise  and  accurate  expression  of  the  truth.  When 
Jesus  speaks,  for  instance,  of  a  passage  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch with  the  introductory  formula  "  Moses 
wrote,"  or  of  a  saying  in  the  book  of  Isaiah  with 
the  formula,  "Isaiah  says,"  he  means  to  express  his 
belief  that  the  passages  thus  introduced  actually 
proceeded  from  Moses  or  Isaiah  respectively;  that 
these  formulas  may  not  be  interpreted  as  phrases 
equivalent  to  "the  writings  commonly  ascribed  to 
Moses,"  or  "the  book  known  as  Isaiah."  This 
rigid  use  of  language  is  the  first  assumption  of  this 
wing  of  evangelical  criticism.  The  second  assump- 
tion is  that  Jesus  Christ  was  omniscient.  As  the 
Incarnate  Son  of  God,  and  essentially  divine  in 
nature,  he  must  have  known  the  truth  about  these 
as  well  as  other  historical  questions.  If  these  as- 
sumptions be  granted  as  correct,  the  position  of 
this  wing  is  firmly  established.  If  either  of  them  is 
disproved,  the  conclusions  depending  on  them  for 
their  validity  are,  of  course,  invalidated. 

The  left  wing  of  the  evangelical  school  of  criti- 
cism is  likewise  dependent  on  two  antecedent  as- 

a  The  left  sumptions.  First  that  Jesus  Christ 
wine-  as  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God,  in  his 

estate  of  humiliation  did  not  preserve  his  divine 
omniscience.  That  it  was  not  essential  to  his 
mission  and  work  that  he  should;  that  it  would 


DOCTRINAL    ASPECTS.  169 

have  removed  him  from  the  human  race  with  which 
he  desired  and  intended  to  identify  himself  to  re- 
tain this  omniscience;  that  the  superhuman  knowl- 
edge exhibited  by  him  during  his  earlier  life  was 
such  as  was  communicated  to  him  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  for  specific  ends;  that  he  does  not  claim 
omniscience,  but  on  the  other  hand  clearly  says 
that  there  are  things  which  transcend  his  knowl- 
edge.* The  second  assumption  usually  made  by 
those  of  this  left  wing,  though  not  altogether  a 
necessary  one,  if  the  first  be  established,  is  that  it 
was  not  an  essential  part  of  the  mission  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  teach  plainly  on  historical  questions; 
that  these  questions  were  not  before  the  public  dur- 
ing his  day;  that  it  would  have  cumbered  and 
hindered  the  furtherance  of  his  message,  had  he 
gone  out  of  his  way  to  enlighten  the  minds  of  men 
specifically  on  such  matters;  that  even  had  he 
possessed  the  knowledge  implied  by  his  committal 
to  the  traditional  views,  he  would  have  used  lan- 
guage in  its  popular  and  not  in  its  scientific  and 
precise  sense.  The  establishment  of  either  of  these 
assumptions  would  result  in  the  establishment  of 
the  standpoint  of  this  wing  of  the  evangelical 
school. 

The  determination  of  the  difference  between  these 
schools  must  be  the  result  of  a  careful  inductive 
study  of  the  facts,  /.  <?.,  the  utterances  of  Jesus  him- 
self and  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Jesus  as 
taught  in  the  New  Testament  writings.  But  in 
any  case  the  authority  of  the  Master  on  all  ques- 
tions on  which  he  teaches  must  be  left  unimpugned. 
*  Mark  xiii.  32. 


1 70  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  the  crucial  test  of  evangelical 
criticism  has  been  and  must  be  applied.* 

The   question   of   the  divine   inspiration   of   the 
Scriptures  is  also  of  cardinal  importance.     Evangel- 
Doctrine    of    icals  have  always  accepted  not  only 
inspiration.         jegus  chrjst  as  an  absolutely  infallible 

and  authoritative  teacher,  whose  word  puts  an  end 
to  all  controversy,  but  also  the  apostles  and  proph- 
ets whose  writings  are  collected  together  in  the 
canonical  Scriptures.  They  have  always  used  these 
writings  as  the  ultimate  court  of  appeal  in  their 
differences  from  one  another.  They  have  planted 
themselves  on  their  authoritativeness  as  the  ground 
of  their  separation  from  the  historic  Catholic 
Church.  They  have  adopted  them  as  their  organic 
principle  and  fundamental  law,  believing  that  they 
contain  and  are  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  And  they  havfe  done  this  because,  in 
inspiration :  these  writings  of  the  apostles  and 

fact  and  theory.    of     thoge     who     were    associated     with 

them,  they  perceived  the  presence  of  the  divine 
Spirit  guiding  and  informing  their  minds  in  some 
way.  This  information  and  guidance  in  the  process 
of  committing  the  truth  of  God  to  others,  either 
orally  or  in  writing,  has  been  called  the  fact  of 
inspiration.  The  evangelical  believes  in  the  fact  of 
inspiration,  and  considers  the  bearings 

Fact :        inde- 
pendent of  criti-   of   critical   theories  on    the    belief    in 

cism.  ..... 

inspiration  of  the  utmost  importance. 
Though  logically  following  any  examination  of  the 
Scriptures  and  built  on  an  inductive  study  of  its 

*  Cf.  Mead,  Christ  and  Criticism;  and  A.  Cave,  The  Battle  of 
the  Standpoints. 


DOCTRINAL    ASPECTS.  171 

features  and  facts,  the  belief  in  inspiration  need 
not  be  based  on  results  of  criticism.  It  has  been 
held  without  any  careful,  critical  investigations,  and 
before  these  were  undertaken.  If  critical  investiga- 
tions make  it  appear  a  delusive  belief,  they  must 
show  reasons  stronger  for  their  own  truth  than  the 
reasons  which  have  led  to  the  evangelical  belief  in 
inspiration. 

But  while  the  fact  of  inspiration  may  be  thus  held 
as  a  truth,  there  may  be  a  wide  difference  among 
evangelicals  as  to  the  mode  and  the  Theories 
limits  of  inspiration.  A  sharp  dis-  modifiedby5t- 
tinction  is  rightly  made  between  belief  in  the  fact 
and  in  specific  theories  as  to  its  extent  and  the 
results  it  secures  in  the  Biblical  writings.  Evan- 
gelicalism is  not  bound  to  any  special  theory  on 
this  subject.  Within  evangelicalism — in  fact  within 
every  special  body  that  holds  to  the  evangelical 
basis — there  are  held  widely  diverging  views.  The 
two  extremes  may  be  cited  as,  on  the  one  hand, 
the  theory  of  the  absolute  inerrancy  of  the  original 
writings  in  all  matters  small  or  great,  and,  on  the 
other,  the  view  that  the  Bible  contains  the  word  of 
God,  but  is  not  the  word  of  God  strictly.  Accord- 
ing to  the  first  view,  inspiration  secured  freedom 
from  all  error  for  the  inspired  man;  according  to 
the  second,  it  does  not  relieve  him  from  the  liability 
to  err  in  matters  of  mere  subordinate  importance 
or  in  matters  which  are  tributary  to  his  main  pur- 
pose but  only  indirectly  connected  with  it. 

While,  therefore,  evangelicalism  would  be  antago- 
nistic to  the  denial  of  inspiration  either  explicitly  or 
implicitly,  it  is  not  committed  to  any  historically 


172  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

expounded  view  of  inspiration.  It  admits  of  the 
possibility  of  some  new  definition  of  the  doctrine  as 
a  result  of  critical  investigation.* 

*  The  literature  of  the  subject  of  this  chapter  is  very  extensive. 
But  as  the  product  of  current  discussion  it  is  to  be  found  scattered 
in  the  recent  issues  of  periodicals.  A  few  works  of  small  com- 
pass, but  great  value,  have  been  contributed  to  the  discussion,  but 
none  that  has  been  recognized  by  all  the  parties  in  debate  as  a  satis- 
factory presentation  of  the  principles  on  which  the  debate  may  be 
closed.  Perhaps  the  time  has  not  yet  come  for  such  a  work. 
Upon  the  whole,  evangelicals  generally  do  not  swerve  far  from 
the  positions  laid  down  in  the  following  works  :  Ellicott's  Christus 
Comprobalor ,  1892  ;  Mead's  Christ  and  Criticism,  1892  ;  Sanday, 
The  Oracles  of  God,  1891  ;  Girdlestone,  Doctor  Doctorum,  1892. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

HISTORY   OF   THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM.       ANCIENT    AND 
MEDIEVAL. 

THE  questions  which  occupy  the  Higher  Criticism, 
and  whose  solution  is  sought  for  through  the  appli- 
cation of  its  principles  and  methods,  criticism  very 
have  always  been  regarded  as  of  the  old> 
highest  interest  by  intelligent  students  of  the  Bible. 
Accordingly  efforts  have  been  made  at  different 
times  and  in  different  ways  to  furnish  answers  to 
them.  In  the  course  of  these  efforts  the  very 
principles  and  rules  constituting  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism, as  already  described,  have  been  used  by  inves- 
tigators. Very  often  these  principles  were  used 
blindly  or  unconsciously.  Especially  was  this  the 
case  in  those  earlier  days  when  all  the  sciences 
lacked  in  systematic  exposition;  when  all  study  was 
carried  on  somewhat  at  random  and  the  principles 
of  investigation  were  as  yet  not  formulated  in  any. 
There  is  a  sharp  difference  to  be  observed  and  a  dis- 
tinction to  be  drawn  between  this  stage  in  the 
development  of  any  science  and  the  subsequent  one, 
in  which  all  its  processes  and  rules  Though  not 
become  distinct  subjects  of  study.  In  long  a  scicnte- 
criticism  especially  this  stage  was  marked  by  a  lack 
of  discrimination  between  theological,  critical,  his- 
torical, or  other  phases  of  questions.  The  same  per- 


174  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

son  in  the  same  connection  would  apply  a  pure 
critical  principle  and  proceed  to  bring  forth  a  theo- 
logical consideration  to  support  the  result,  as  if 
unconscious  of  the  difference  in  the  place  and  force 
of  the  two  considerations.  This  makes  it  extremely 
difficult  to  disentangle  the  critical  work  done  by 
even  the  best  of  the  men  of  this  stage  from  the  con- 
jectures and  baseless  traditions  with  which  it  seems 
to  be  interwoven.  Criticism  seems  to  be  accidental 
and  sporadic  rather  than  systematic  and  premedi- 
tated. Nevertheless,  critical  arguments — we  may 
almost  say  the  critical  arguments  one  and  all,  as 
later  developed  by  the  constant  practice  of  criti- 
cism— are  used  throughout  this  stage.  It  is  there- 
fore an  error  to  speak  of  the  ancient  times  as 
though  criticism  was  unknown  in  them,  or  of  the 
history  of  criticism  as  dating  from  the  latter  half 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  This  history  cannot  be 
complete  without  going  back  to  the  very  origin  of 
the  writings  with  which  it  deals. 

From  the  above  it  is  evident  that  our  division  of 
the  history  of  the  Higher  Criticism  must  be  into 
Periods  in  its     two    periods,    the    ancient    and    the 
history.  modern.      The    characteristic    differ- 

ence between  these  two  periods  has  already  been 
given  in  its  main  outline.  The  first  of  the  periods 
is  the  period  of  the  infancy  and  helplessness  of 
criticism.  It  exists  along  with  other  sister  methods 
of  research,  altogether  unconscious  of  its  functions 
and  its  rights.  In  the  second  it  comes,  so  to  speak, 
to  its  self-consciousness;  it  realizes  its  work  and 
soon  claims  exclusive  control  and  dominion  of  a 
field  where  it  had  been  long  content  to  dwell  in 


HISTORY    OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.  175 

peace,  and  labor  unobserved,  with  others  on 
undefined  terms.  The  first  of  these  periods  extends 
from  time  immemorial  to  the  days  of  Astruc. 
More  especially  the  date  of  demarcation  between 
the  ancient  and  the  modern  stages  of  criticism 
ought  to  be  set  down  at  1753 — the  year  of  the 
publication  of  the  treatise  by  Astruc  entitled  : 
Conjectures  sur  les  Memoires  originaux  dont  il  paroit 
que  Moyse  s'est  servi pour  composer  le  livre  de  la  GSnhe. 
The  second  stage,  it  goes  without  saying,  extends 
from  Astruc  to  the  present  day. 

I.  During  the  period  preceding  the  publication 
of  Astruc's  epoch-making  book  we  are  to  distin- 
guish three  epochs  based  on  changes 

I.  Period  :  x. 

of  standpoint  as  follows:  First,  the  Pre-Christian 
Pre-Christian  epoch;  this  dealt  with 
the  questions  of  authorship,  structure,  and  aim  in 
direct  and  positive  statements  without  undertaking 
to  discuss  them.  Second,  the  age  between  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  era  and  the  Reforma- 
tion; this  approached  these  same  questions  with 
a  definite  understanding  of  their  bearings,  but  no 
clear  principles  as  to  the  influence  which  their  dis- 
cussion should  have  on  the  general  subject  of 
religion  and  theology.  Third,  the  epoch  between 
the  Reformation  and  the  rise  of  the  modern  criti- 
cism; this  dealt  with  the  same  questions  with  pre- 
possessions drawn  from  dogmatic  theology;  /'.  e., 
conclusions  from  the  study  of  the  content  of  the 
Bible  (and  by  content  in  this  connection  is  meant 
the  theological  or  religious  elements  and  not  the 
historical  and  literary  features  of  the  books).  The 
first  of  these  subperiods,  that  which  precedes  the 


176  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Christian  era,  may  be  set  aside  as  furnishing  no 
appreciable  material  for  a  sketch  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Higher  Criticism.  Whatever  there  is 
in  this  period  of  criticism  in  the  dealings  of  men 
with  the  Biblical  books  is  lost  in  the  manner  with 
which  utterances  regarding  the  answers  to  the 
questions  of  criticism  are  made.  We  have  bare 
statements;  whether  these  represent  antecedent 
processes  of  investigation  it  is  not  clear.  They 
may  represent  much  diligent  research;  but  as  there 
appeared  to  be  no  controversy  on  the  questions 
alluded  to,  it  seemed  unnecessary  to  expose  the 
course  of  investigation  which  led  to  the  state- 
ments. Or  it  is  possible  that  there  were  no  inves- 
tigations, and  the  results  we  have  in  these  state- 
ments are  mere  opinions  or  hereditary  traditions 
received  unquestioningly  by  each  generation  from 
its  predecessor.  Whatever  the  truth,  it  is  evidently 
too  late  to  attempt  to  go  behind  the  bare  state- 
ments and  discover  critical  methods,  if  any  were 
used  in  reaching  them. 

With   the  advent  of  the  Christian   era  and   the 

appearance  of  the  documents  that  give  an  account 

2.  Early  °^   tne   °rigm   of   Christianity   and  a 

Christian  age.      ruje  £or  guidance  in  faith  and  conduct, 

criticism  found  a  new  field  and  a  new  impulse. 
Thus  it  came  about  that  in  this  epoch  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  formed  the  subject-matter 
of  discussions.  Moreover,  it  is  in  the  earlier  years 
of  the  epoch,  while  there  was  room  for  doubt  and 
discussion,  that  critical  discussions  are  to  be  found. 
As  a  matter  of  history  the  first  appearance  itself  of 
the  New  Testament  books  seems  to  have  caused  no 


HISTORY    OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.  177 

discussion.  Their  importance  was  not  appreciated 
at  once.  The  faith  which  they  expounded  and  pro- 
moted was  scarcely  considered  a  historic  factor  as 
yet.  They  served  to  make  it  such.  But  as  this 
faith  grew  in  significance  to  the  world,  and  differ- 
ences of  opinion  arose  as  to  its  exact  nature  and 
intellectual  and  practical  applications,  the  question 
of  the  authority  of  the  documents  arose  and  with 
it  all  the  questions  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  The 
most  important  of  these  questions,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  its  bearing  on  the  practical  use  to  be 
made  of  the  answer,  was  :  Did  an  apostle  write 
or  cause  to  be  written  any  given  document  ?  The 
object  of  the  whole  investigation  seemed  to  be  to 
trace  each  book  to  its  source,  with  a  view  of  deter- 
mining the  further  point  of  its  binding  authority 
as  a  part  of  a  canon  or  rule  of  faith.  The  applica- 
tion of  principles,  however,  in  obtaining  answers  to 
this  question  is  not  clear  at  first.  The  idea  was  no 
doubt  entertained  that  there  is  a  difference  between 
two  classes  of  early  Christian  writings,  i.  e.,  the 
genuine  and  the  spurious;  but  that  these  two  classes 
can  be  distinguished  from  one  another  by  internal 
marks  does  not  come  into  view  until  the  time  of 
Origen.  The  fact  that  Marcion  established  a  canon 
for  himself  may  illustrate  the  case.  Marcion  had 
reasons,  which  he  could  and  did  assign,  for  rejecting 
the  authority  of  a  great  number  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings;  he  had  reasons  for  accepting  as 
authoritative  the  ten  epistles  of  Paul  and  the  Gos- 
pel of  Luke.  But  whether  these  reasons  were  to 
any  extent  based  on  linguistic  and  historical 
grounds,  or  whether  linguistic  and  historical  con- 


178  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

siderations  were  among  the  reasons  that  moved 
him  to  accept  the  books  of  his  canon,  and  these 
only,  does  not  appear  from  anything  we  know  of  his 
processes  of  thinking.  His  chief  motive  we  know 
was  the  desire  to  confirm  his  philosophy  of  re- 
ligion. Whatever  books  tended  to  do  this  he  was 
inclined  to  accept  as  authoritative;  those  that  did 
not  he  was  inclined  to  reject.  This  is  as  far  as  we 
can  go  in  discovering  the  sum  and  substance  of  his 
criticism. 

With  Origen  there  is  a  marked  change  of  base. 
Students  of  the  Bible  begin  to  distinguish  between 
origen  (185-  what  should  be  accepted  or  rejected 
*54  A.  D.).  noj.  simpiy  because  it  confirms  or  dis- 
turbs preconceived  views,  but  because  it  is  attested 
by  historical  and  philological  evidence.  They  also 
begin  to  specify  this  evidence.  They  assign  their 
reasons  for  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the 
genuineness  of  books.  Origen  himself,  writing  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  uses  the  arguments 
from  language  and  style;  from  the  character  of 
thought  contained  in  the  Epistle;  and  from  the 
testimony  of  the  ancients  or  tradition.  He  care- 
fully balances  the  evidence  furnished  by  these 
sources.  The  style  points  to  a  different  author 
than  the  Apostle  Paul;  the  thought  is  very  much 
like  Paul's,  and  tradition  ascribes  the  letter  to  the 
apostle.  His  conclusion  is  that  those  who  believe 
the  writing  to  be  Pauline  are  not  unreasonable;  but 
for  himself,  no  result  based  on  the  evidence  at  hand 
can  have  demonstrative  force.  "As  to  who  wrote 
the  letter  God  only  knows  the  truth."  *  He  further 
*Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl,,  vi.  25. 


HISTORY    OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.  179 

adds  that  "  some  assert  that  Clement,  who  became 
bishop  of  the  church  at  Rome,  wrote  it;  and  others 
that  this  was  done  by  Luke,  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  Acts."  Thus  it  appears  that  in 
discussing  the  question  of  the  right  of  some  parts 
of  the  canon  to  be  where  they  are,  it  came  to  be 
customary  not  merely  to  express  a  belief  one  way 
or  another,  but  to  inquire  into  the  reasons  which 
support  it  or  militate  against  it.  This  is  nothing 
but  criticism  in  its  incipient  stage. 

Closely  following  Origen,  in  these  first  days  of 
Biblical  criticism,  came  his  successor  at  the  head 
of  the  Alexandrian  school,  Dionysius. 

r~i  -i  •  1-1  .     i  •  Dionysius  of 

The  special  occasion  which  set  him  Alexandria  (fl. 
to  employ  critical  methods  was  the 
controversy  regarding  the  authority  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse. He  contended  that  this  book  was  not  the 
work  of  the  Apostle  John.  The  reasons  he  gave 
for  supporting  this  view  were:  (i)  The  literary 
argument.  The  style  of  the  author  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse is  not  the  same  as  that  of  the  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  As  this  was  written  by  the  Apostle 
John,  the  Apocalypse  is  not  his  work.  (2)  The 
argument  from  difference  of  personal  habit  and 
characteristic.  The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
never  names  himself.  So  also  the  author  of  the 
First  Epistle  of  John,  assuming  that  he  is  the  same 
as  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  never  mentions  him- 
self. The  author  of  the  Apocalypse  frequently 
does  so.  (3)  The  argument  from  silence.  This 
is  used  twice:  First,  inasmuch  as  there  were  many 
Johns,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  if  this  author  were 
the  Apostle  he  would  have  said  so,  since  he  had 


l8o  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

already  described  himself  in  the  Gospel  as  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved;  as  the  one  who  had 
leaned  on  the  Master's  bosom;  as  the  brother  of 
James,  and  as  one  of  the  Twelve.  Secondly,  there 
is  no  mention  of  the  Apocalypse  in  the  Epistle,  not 
to  speak  of  the  Gospel,  or  of  any  revelation  given 
to  the  evangelist  and  apostle.  That  the  mention 
of  such  a  revelation  was  to  be  expected  appears 
from  the  fact  that  Paul,  having  received  such  a 
revelation,  speaks  of  it  in  his  Epistles,  although  Paul 
did  not  write  down  the  revelation  which  he  had 
received.  (4)  The  argument  from  character  of 
thought.  The  thought  of  the  Gospel  and  the 
Epistle  is  the  same;  that  of  the  Apocalypse  is 
totally  different.  And  the  conclusion  which 
Dionysius  reaches,  in  view  of  these  facts,  is  that  the 
Apocalypse  is  the  work  of  a  certain  John,  but  this 
John  is  not  the  brother  of  James  and  author  of  the 
Gospel.  As  to  who  he  is,  Dionysius  cannot  tell. 
He  believes  in  the  inspiration  and  prophetic  charac- 
ter of  its  content,  and  deprecates  the  ascription  of 
it  to  Cerinthus  or  any  other  like-minded  author. 

From  another  point  of  view  Dionysius'  criticism 
shows  how  easily  motives  ab  extra  are  at  this  stage 
External  bias    allowed  to  influence  the  processes  and 
allowed.  methods  of  criticism.     This  early  critic 

can  hardly  conceal  his  object  in  thus  denying  that 
the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  was  a  different  person 
from  the  author  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles 
bearing  the  name  of  John.  These  latter  writings 
are  perspicuous.  Their  writer's  style  is  clear  and 
easy  to  be  understood.  If  it  could  be  shown  that 
the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  is  not  the  same,  it 


HISTORY    OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.  l8l 

would  be  easy  to  assert  that  its  author  was  an 
obscure  writer;  hence  that  this  book  should  not 
be  used  in  existing  controversies  as  the  others  were. 
Thus  the  Chiliasts,  who  constantly  quoted  it,  would 
be  deprived  of  their  chief  source  of  support. 
Dionysius,  without  denying  the  inspiration  of  the 
book  and  its  usefulness,  when  properly  understood, 
aims  to  disarm  those  who  he  thinks  were  making 
wrong  use  of  it;  this  he  thinks  he  can  do  by  proving 
that  it  is  not  a  clear  writing;  to  this  end  he  resorts 
to  the  criticism  that  proves  it  to  be  the  work  of 
another  than  John  the  Evangelist,  who  was  mani- 
festly a  clear  writer.  Thus,  even  at  this  early  date, 
extra-critical  views  were  allowed  to  influence,  at  least 
indirectly,  the  course  of  criticism.* 

In  the  sphere  of  the  Old  Testament  there  was 
not  as  much  room  for  difference  of  opinion.  The 
writings  constituting  this  part  of  the 

Common  view 

canon  had  been  received  as  a  binding  of  the  old  Tes- 
rule  of  faith  and  conduct,  and  little 
was  to  be  gained  by  examining  the  grounds  on 
which  this  was  done.  Jesus  Christ  had  used  these 
writings  as  authoritative  sources  of  information  and 
presumably  accepted  the  current  views  of  the  Jews 
regarding  them.  His  imprimatur  was  thus,  in 
appearance  at  least,  put  upon  the  Old  Testament  as 
it  stood  in  his  day.  This  belief  had  the  tendency 
to  produce  the  impression,  which  it  always  has  had 
since,  wherever  it  has  prevailed,  that  the  question  of 
the  origin  and  nature  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  a  closed'  question  for  practical  purposes. 
This  was  the  state  of  opinion  among  Christians. 
*Eusebius,  Hist,  Eccl.,  vii.  10,  24,  25. 


182  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

But  the  opponents  of  Christianity  did  not  feel  the 
restraints  thus  imposed  upon  Christians  by  tradi- 

opponents  ti°n  and  the  supposed  attitude  of 
of  Christianity.  jegus  christ  toward  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Starting  with  the  rejection  of  the  claims  of 
both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  writings  to 
supernatural  origin,  they  naturally  adopted  such 
theories  of  their  authorship  and  value  as  would 
harmonize  with  the  rejection  of  this  supernatural 
origin.  It  was  very  exceptionally  indeed  that  they 
deemed  the  subject  worthy  of  a  careful  examination; 
but  whenever  they  did  so,  the  conclusions  they 
reached  were  as  above  stated. 

Celsus,  the  first  great  opponent  of  Christianity,  in 
a  treatise  written  toward  the  end  of  the  second 

ceisus  (fl  190  century  considered  the  book  of  Genesis 
A-  D-)-  not  a  writing  of  Moses,  but  of  a  number 

of  other  authors.* 

Following  in  the  footsteps  of  Celsus  came  Por- 
phyry's investigation  of  the  book  of  Daniel.  Por- 

Porphyry  (233-  Pnyrv  was  a  Neo-Platonic  philosopher 
who  died  A.  D.  305.  He  wrote  a  trea- 
tise Against  Christians,  in  fifteen  books.  Among 
other  things  he  found  the  prophetical  utterances  of 
Daniel  supporting  the  claims  of  Christianity  to 
supernatural  origin.  He  made  these  utterances  the 
subject  of  special  investigation,  and  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  such  minute  predictions  as  were 
contained  in  this  book  could  not  have  been  made. 
The  author  must  have  lived  after  the  events  pre- 

*  Origen,  Contra  Cels.,  iv.  42.  As  this  treatise  is  not  extant, 
we  can  only  conjecture  as  to  the  mode  of  reasoning  used  by  him 
in  reaching  this  conclusion. 


HISTORY   OF    THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM.  183 

dieted.  These  were  vaticinia  ex  eventu.  The 
writer  of  Daniel  must  have  written  during  the 
Maccabean  age,  more  precisely,  during  the  reign  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes.* 

It  hardly  needs  to  be  said  that  we  have  here  an 
instance  of  the  use  of  a  critical  argument,  that  from 
anachronism.  As  has  already  been  intimated,  how- 
ever, there  was  a  bias  behind  the  use  of  this  critical 
weapon;  viz.,  the  opposition  of  Porphyry  to  Chris- 
tianity. 

Somewhat  later,  Eusebius  gave  his  well-known 
account  of  the  Christian  Scriptures.  He  did  not, 
however,  base  his  conclusions  on  Eusebius, 
critical  arguments  strictly,  but  on  the  070-341,  A.  D.). 
traditions  of  the  ancients.  Incidentally  he  used  the 
critical  argument  from  the  content  of  thought  in 
testing  and  rejecting  certain  books  which  he  could 
not  classify  among  his  accepted  or  doubtful  books. 
The  utter  unlikeness  of  the  expression  and  teach- 
ing of  these,  he  asserts,  put  them  outside  the  canon, 
not  merely  as  spurious  but  also  as  improper  and 
wicked,  f 

These  are  some  of  the  clearest  cases  of  the  ap- 
plication of  critical  principles  to  the  Bible  in  the 
ancient  period.  They  do  not  constitute  a  syste- 
matic and  scientific  criticism,  but  they  show  that 
the  critical  instinct  and  method  had  some  share  in 
aggressive  and  defensive  work  in  the  course  of  con- 
troversy. Other  instances  could  be  cited;  but  they 
would  be  obscurer  in  character,  and  could  not  add 
much  to  our  knowledge  of  the  criticism  during  the 

*  Jerome,  Comm.  in  Dan.  Proph. 
f  Eusebius,  Hist,  Eccl.,  iii.  25. 


184  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

period  under  consideration.  The  above  sufficiently 
show  that  this  period  was  a  time  when  the  need  of 
criticism  was  felt  and  beginnings  were  made  in  it. 

This  time  did  not  last  long.     When  the  Church 
was  united  to  the  state,  it  assumed  the  authority  to 

Disuse  and  sav  what  should  be  considered  canon- 
disappearance.  ical  among  the  current  Christian  writ- 
ings  and  what  should  not.  And  this  not  arbitrarily, 
but  on  the  basis  of  such  reasoning  as  was  thought 
sufficient.  The  main  consideration  in  this  reasoning 
was  the  tradition  of  the  ancients.  That  there  may 
have  been  other  considerations  cannot  be  denied. 
But  at  any  rate  as  soon  as  the  Church  pronounced 
on  the  canon  in  its  ecclesiastical  councils,  notably 
those  at  Laodicea  (364)  and  at  Carthage  (397),  all 
necessity  for  pressing  individual  investigations  in 
this  field  seemed  to  disappear.  It  became  a  matter 
of  secondary  importance  to  inquire  into  the  origin 
of  the  books  of  the  canon  and  allied  questions 
when  their  authority  was  declared  binding  by  official 
action  of  the  Church.  Tradition  thus  became 
almost  the  exclusive  court  of  appeal.  Accordingly 
there  is  an  appreciable  difference  in  this  regard 
between  the  attitude  of  scholars  like  Origen  pre- 
ceding, and  Jerome  following,  the  action  of  the 
councils.  Both  take  occasion  to  speak  of  the  un- 
certainty of  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  ;  but  whereas  Origen  uses  some  critical 
principles  in  dealing  with  the  subject,  Jerome  leans 
altogether  on  the  authority  of  tradition.* 

The  long  interval  from  Jerome  to  Luther  and  the 
Reformers  is  characterized  by  almost  universal  and 
*Ej>.  Dardan,,  cxxix.  3,  in  Migne's  edition. 


HISTORY    OF    THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM.  185 

total  stagnancy  in  this  department.  The  reform- 
ers were  too  busy  with  their  controversies  in  the 
domain  of  dogmatics,  and  in  the  work  Reforma- 

of  organizing  the  new  movement,  to    tionage. 
enter  into  the  systematic  study  of  critical  questions; 
and  yet  the  chief  of  them  were  not  kept  out  of  the 
field  altogether. 

Luther's  attitude  toward  the  canon  is  very  well 
known.  He  instituted  a  single  test,  which  he 
applied  irrespective  of  consequences. 
"That  which  does  not  teach  Christ," 
said  he,  "  is  not  apostolic,  even  if  a  Peter  or  a  Paul 
taught  it. "  Hence  on  the  critical  question  of  the 
value  of  the  various  Biblical  books  he  had  something 
to  say.  He  believed  these  books  were  not  all 
equally  valuable.  He  put  the  Gospel  of  John,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  the  First  Epistle  of 
Peter  in  the  first  rank.  In  fact  he  made  these  books 
a  class  by  themselves.  Possessing  these,  the  Church 
did  not  absolutely  need  the  rest  of  the  Scripture. 
The  other  books  were  to  be  estimated  differently, 
always  putting  the  Epistles  of  Paul  above  the  Gospels. 
Of  the  Old  Testament  books  he  placed  Esther  in  the 
same  class  with  Maccabees;  Chronicles  were  lower 
than  Kings  for  historic  value.  On  the  question  of 
authorship,  he  asks,  "  What  does  it  matter  if  Moses 
should  not  have  himself  written  the  Pentateuch  ?" 
perhaps  with  reference  to  the  denial  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  by  Carlstadt.  He  rejects  the  theory 
that  Solomon  wrote  the  Song  of  Songs;  he  believes 
that  many  of  the  Old  Testament  books  were  revised 
by  later  editors  ;  he  finds  chronological  confusion 
in  the  present  order  or  arrangement  of  the  prophecies 


1 86  THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

of  Jeremiah;  he  assigns  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  to 
the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  In  the  New  Testament 
the  authorship  of  Hebrews  did  not  disturb  him, 
although  he,  for  the  first  time,  suggested  that  it 
might  be  the  work  of  Apollos.  Without  dealing 
with  the  question  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse directly,  he  rejected  the  inspiration  of  that 
book.  His  treatment  of  the  Epistle  of  James  has 
been  often  quoted  as  characteristic  of  his  whole 
attitude  and  method.  He  called  it  "a  veritable 
epistle  of  straw,"  and  not  written  by  an  apostle  at 
all.  The  reason  he  assigned  is  interesting  as  well 
as  characteristic;  "it  fully  contradicts  St.  Paul." 
The  Epistle  of  Jude  is  "an  unnecessary,  second- 
hand, and  non-apostolic  one."  It  is  evident,  even 
from  a  bare  and  summary  enumeration  of  them,  that 
these  views  are  not  based  on  strict  critical  princi- 
ples, yet  they  contain  and  imply  the  application  of 
such  principles;  and  so  far  as  they  are  implied 
these  principles  are  essentially  the  same  as  those 
used  in  later  times. 

Carlstadt,  as  already  intimated,  took  the  ground 

that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch.     Only 

an  insane  person  could  attribute  the 

Carlstadt.       passage  giving  an  account  of  Moses' 

death  to  Moses  himself.* 

The  other  leading  reformers  did  not  adopt  Lu- 
ther's views   on   the   Scriptures.      Calvin,  and  the 
churches  which  agreed  with  him  in  his 
theological  views,  looked  on  the  Gospel 
more  broadly,  as  diffused  throughout  the  whole  of 
the  Bible.     This  was  to  them  the  source  of  all  true 

* Libellus  df  Scripturis  Canonicis,  pub.  1521. 


HISTORY    OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.  187 

and  valid  religious  thought  and  the  ultimate  court 
of  appeal  in  every  controversy  among  themselves 
and  with  the  Romanists.  They  were  satisfied  to 
begin  with  an  enumeration  of  the  books  making  up 
the  Scripture  canon.  Questions  preceding  this  step 
were  not  entertained  as  important.  The  author- 
ship, literary  form,  and  specific  value  of  a  Biblical 
work  pertained  to  the  outer  circumference,  and  not 
to  the  very  center  of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture.  If 
the  Bible  was  the  Word  of  God,  and  human  instru- 
mentalities were  merely  passive  in  its  production, 
the  chief  thing  in  searching  the  Scriptures  must  be 
to  ascertain  the  mind  of  God  revealed  in  them. 
Everything  else  must  be  of  subsidiary  interest,  if 
not  altogether  unnecessary.  This,  it  may  be  said, 
was  the  mind  and  attitude  of  the  Reformed  wing  of 
Protestantism.  And  this  it  continued  to  be  through- 
out the  period  of  the  formation  of  the  Creeds,  includ- 
ing the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith;  and  even 
later  through  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
Outside  the  evangelical  or  strictly  Protestant 
world  questions  of  this  sort  were  regarded  as  more 
important,  and  therefore  worthy  of  in- 
vestigation. Hobbes  disputes  the  va- 
lidity of  the  reasoning  that  Moses  must  have  written 
the  Pentateuch  because  its  five  books  are  called  the 
"Books  of  Moses."  "No  more  than  these  titles," 
says  he,  "  the  Book  of  Joshua,  the  Book  of  Judges, 
the  Book  of  Ruth  and  the  Book  of  Kings  are 
arguments  sufficient  to  prove  that  they  were  writ- 
ten by  Joshua,  by  the  Judges,  by  Ruth,  and  by  the 
Kings."  His  position  is  that:  "Though  Moses 
did  not  compile  these  books  entirely,  and  in  the 


1 88  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

form  in  which  we  have  them,  yet  he  wrote  all  that 
he  is  there  said  to  have  written."*  Somewhat  more 
positive  and  further  advanced  in  the  negative  di- 
rection is  the  position  of  Benedict  Spinoza.  This 
original  thinker  took  up  some  ob- 

Spinoza.  ,        . 

scure  phrases  of  Aben  Ezras  in 
which  the  medieval  rabbi  had  pointed  out  some 
post-Mosaic  material  in  the  Pentateuch  and  elab- 
orated them  into  a  set  of  propositions  leading  to 
the  conclusion  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Penta- 
teuch. To  this  negative  theory  Spinoza  further 
appended  the  theory,  which  has  only  a  loose  con- 
nection with  it,  that  the  historical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  a  body  of  composite  writings  put 
together,  probably  by  Ezra,  in  the  fifth  century  B.  c. 
out  of  a  larger  mass,  the  remainder  of  the  material 
having  been  lost  since,  f 

Among  Roman  Catholics,  And.  Masius  (Maes), 
1753,  suggested  that  the  Pentateuch  had  been  revised 

Roman  Cath-  by  Ezra.  J  Peyrerius,  basing  himself  on 
olics<  some  of  the  suggestions  of  Aben  Ezra 

(already  spoken  of  as  the  starting-point  of  Spinoza's 
speculations  relating  the  authorship  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch), reached  the  conclusion  that  the  Penta- 
teuch, as  at  present  found,  is  not  the  work  of  Moses, 
but  an  excerpt  from  a  larger  work  by  Moses.  § 
But  Roman  Catholic  criticism  reached  a  crisis  in 

*  Leviathan,  Pt.  III.  cxxxiii. 

f  Tractatus  Theologico-politicus ,  pub.  1670. 

\Comm.Josh.,  Praef. 

§  Preadamittz,  pub.  1655.  Peyrere,  however,  wrote  his  Preada- 
mitce  while  a  Protestant,  and  recanted  the  views  therein  expressed 
when  he  joined  the  Roman  Church. 


HISTORY    OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.  189 

the  labors  of  Richard  Simon.*  This  author  made 
use  of  true  critical  principles.  He  gathered  up 
literary  and  historical  data,  especially 

,  ,      .  ,,    ..     *         R.Simon. 

facts  relating  to  style,  parallelism 
of  narratives,  lack  of  order  and  arrangement.  On 
these  data  he  based  some  new  views.  He  claimed 
that  there  were  in  Israel  official  annalists,  as  among 
other  ancient  peoples;  that  in  fact  Moses  appointed 
some  such  in  imitation  of  the  Egyptians.  Moses 
himself  wrote  the  book  of  the  Law.  The  annalists 
wrote  records  of  the  events.  Out  of  the  materials 
Ezra,  or  possibly  some  later  editor,  compiled  the  his- 
torical books  of  the  Old  Testament;  not,  however, 
with  strict  regard  to  order,  but  using  large  freedom 
with  the  official  documents.  Only  a  small  portion 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  accordingly  of  Mosaic  origin 
and  that  not  distinguishable,  because  of  editorial 
alterations.  It  has  often  been  said  that  Simon's 
motive  in  entering  the  field  of  Biblical  criticism  was 
not  so  much  love  for  criticism  for  its  own  sake  as 
opposition  to  the  Protestant  standpoint  of  adher- 
ence to  the  Bible  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  arbi- 
ter in  theological  debate.  By  calling  attention  to 
the  human  origins  of  the  Biblical  books  he  hoped  to 
weaken  this  position.  Whatever  his  intention  may 
have  been,  his  own  Church  did  not  approve  these 
views.  The  great  Bossuet  declared  himself  against 
them.  His  book  on  the  Old  Testament  was  ex- 

*Histoire  Critique  du  Texte  du  Vieux  Testament,  pub.  1678-85. 
His  Histoire  Critique  du  Texte  du  Nouveau  Testament,  pub.  i680, 
though  presumably  on  the  Lower  Criticism  contains  a  consider- 
able amount  of  material  gathered  together  for  work  in  the  field  of 
the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament. 


19O  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

amined,  condemned,  and  all  obtainable  copies  of  it 
destroyed.  Outside  his  own  communion  he  found 
an  able  opponent  of  his  theories  in  Clericus.* 
This  theologian  broached  the  novel  view  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  a  compilation  by  the 

Clericus.  .  ••««»« 

priest  sent  by  the  king  of  Assyria  to 
Samaria  to  teach  the  people  the  religion  of  Jehovah. 
Later  he  changed  his  view,  and  fell  back  to  the 
traditional  theory  of  Mosaic  authorship  with  later 
interpolations.!  This  later  view  of  his  found  an 
opponent  in  Anton  van  Dale,  who  contended  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  a  compilation  originating  in 
Van  Dale  tne  a&e  °*  Ezra,  and  properly  the 
work  of  Ezra.  Ezra,  however,  incor- 
porated into  it  materials  from  the  book  of  the 
Law,  which  was  of  Mosaic  origin.  \ 

The  views  of  Simon,  Le  Clerc,  and  Van  Dale,  dif- 
ferent as  they  were  from  one  another,  were  all  de- 
partures  from    the   views  commonly 

Opposition. 

accepted  before  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury. These  older  views  now  found  champions  in 
two  classes  of  writers.  First,  those  who  fortified 
them  by  considerations  derived  from  dogmatic  the- 
ology. And  second,  those  who  acknowledged  the 
force  of  the  principles  used  by  these  critics  and  the 
reality  of  the  facts  cited;  but  denied  the  legitimacy 
of  the  conclusions  drawn  from  them,  and  gave  ex- 

*  Jean  Le  Clerc,  Sentimens  de  quelques  thMogiens  de  Hollande 
sur  VHistoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament  par  Pere  R.  Simon, 
published  1685. 

f  Comm.  Genes,  Proleg,,  Dissert.  Tertia. 

\  De  Origine  et  Progressu  Idolatries,  pub.  1696  ;  and  Epistola 
ad  Morinum. 


HISTORY    OF    THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM.  191 

planations  of  the  facts  consistent  with  the  older 
views.  Of  the  first  class  the  most  prominent  rep- 
resentative was  Carpzov.*  The  influence  of  Carp- 
zov  in  the  history  of  criticism  is  that 
of  a  corrective  from  without  rather 
than  that  of  factor,  from  within.  His  view  of  inspi- 
ration was  a  fundamental  truth  to  him.  Views  as 
to  the  origin  of  the  books  of  the  canon  must  harmo- 
nize with  this,  if  they  were  to  be  allowed  any  standing. 
The  most  prominent  representative  of  the  second 
class  of  conservatives  was  Vitringa.  f  Observing 
the  frequent  occurrence  of  the  form- 

Vitringa 

ula  in  Genesis  of  "These  are  the 
generations  of  .  .  .  '  Vitringa  propounded  the 
view  that  Moses,  in  writing  Genesis,  had  used  doc- 
uments composed  by  the  Patriarchs.  This  amounts 
to  the  use  of  critical  methods,  without  denying  the 
traditional  theory  of  the  origin  of  Genesis  or  antago- 
nizing any  doctrines  held  in  the  Church. 

Other  writers  who  taught  the  earlier  views  from 
the  standpoint  of  either  of  these  classes  are,  Wit- 
sius,J  Prideaux,§  Heidegger,  ||  and  Huet.l"  But  no 
further  progress  was  made  in  the  elaboration  of 
the  Higher  Criticism  as  a  science  until  the  middle 
of  the  eighteenth  century. 

*Johann  Gottlob  Carpzov,  1679-1767.  Introductio  ad  Lib. 
Canon.,  Leipzig,  1714-21  ;  Critica  Sacra,  Leipzig,  1724. 

f  Campegius  Vitringa,  Observationum  Sacrarum  Libri  VI,  pub. 
1683-1708,  and  1723. 

\Misc.  Sacra,  pub.  1692, 

§  Old  and  New  Testaments  Connected,   1716-18. 

I)  Exercitationes  Bibllcce,  pub.  1700. 

^[  Demonstratio  Evangelica,  pub.  1679. 


CHAPTER  X. 

MODERN    CRITICISM   OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT. 

II.  IN  tracing  the  history  of  the  Higher  Criticism, 
as  we  reach  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  it 
n.  Modem  era  becomes  necessary  to  observe  a  dis- 
of  o-Hicism.  tinction  between  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments.  The  application  and  development  of 
critical  principles  are  noticeably  different  in  these 
two  fields.  Already,  before  the  time  specified,  atten- 
tion in  the  New  Testament  had  been  almost  exclu- 
sively given  to  the  study  of  the  text.  Scholars  like 
Bentley,  Mill,  and  Wettstein  had  by  their  labors 
shown  the  importance  of  purifying  the  text  of  this 
portion  of  Scripture.  All  other  questions,  whether 
regarding  authorship  or  literary  form,  were  not 
entertained.  The  wave  of  rationalism  which  swept 
over  Europe  during  the  eighteenth  century  recalled 
attention  from  the  text  to  the  more  fundamental 
subjects  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  first  rec- 
ords of  the  Christian  religion.  But  the  interest 
thus  aroused  was  not  purely  literary  or  historical, 
but  rather  philosophical.  The  point  of  view  from 
which  research  in  this  field  was  undertaken  was 
thus  that  of  the  philosophy  of  religion.  In  the 
Old  Testament  field,  on  the  other  hand,  criticism 
began  with  what  was' put  forth  as  a  simple  literary 
discovery — that  of  the  alternate  use  of  different 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     193 

names  designating  God  in  the  Book  of  Genesis.  It 
gradually  developed  from  this  beginning  into  the 
use  of  literary  phenomena  of  various  other  classes; 
then  into  the  use  of  historical  data;  and  finally  into 
the  use  of  the  content  of  thought  as  bases  for 
forming  judgments  regarding  the  origin  and  nature 
of  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  and  subsequently  of 
the  whole  Old  Testament. 

This  difference  will  lead  us  to  trace  separately 
the  course  of  the  Higher  Criticism  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament first  and  in  the  New  afterward. 

I.     THE    HEXATEUCH   QUESTION. 

(A)  Use  and  development  of  the  literary  argument. — 
The  initial  step  in  the  first  stage  of  modern  Old 
Testament  criticism  was,  as  above  x  The » Hexa- 
stated,  the  discovery  that  in  alternate  teuch  "  <iuestion- 
sections  of  Genesis  use  is  made  of  different  divine 
names;  this  fact  served  as  the  ground  of  the  division 
of  that  book  into  documents.  It  was  claimed  that 
the  book  is  the  work  of  more  than  one  author.  This 
step  was  taken  by  Astruc,  and  the  argument  from  the 
use  of  divine  names  continued  to  be  the  chief  ground 
of  appeal  for  the  next  generation  or  so,  being  by  the 
end  of  the  eighteenth  century  broad-  Literary 
ened  into  what  we  now  call  the  literary  argument, 
argument  in  general.  Jean  Astruc*  (1684-1766) 
was  the  son  of  a  Protestant  minister,  who  had 
joined  the  Roman  Catholic  communion  upon  the  re- 
vocation of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  (1685)  ;  he  studied 

*  See  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  vol.  iii.  pp.  83-102. 
"  Jean  Astruc,"  by  Howard  Osgood,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 


194  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

and  taught  medicine,  but  becoming  interested  in  the 

Old  Testament  he  published  in  1753  his  Conjectures 

surles  Me"moires  originaux  dont  il paroit 

Jean  Astruc,  ,  ..  . 

que  Moyse  s  est  servi  pour  composer  le  hvre 
de  la  Ge'ntse,  Bruxelles.  This  was  to  be  a  defense 
of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  an 
answer  to  the  attacks  of  Spinoza.  It  had  been  noticed 
that  the  names  Jehovah  and  Elohim  were  used  in  al- 
ternate passages  of  Genesis,  which  also  parallelized 
with  one  another  as  to  subject-matter.  From  this 
he  drew  the  inference  that  Moses,  in  composing 
Genesis,  had  made  use  of  two  preexisting  documents 
written  by  earlier  writers,  in  one  of  which  God  was 
uniformly  called  Jehovah  and  in  the  other  Elohim. 
These  documents  Moses  incorporated  into  his  work 
almost  unaltered.  The  apparent  impression  of  con- 
fusion resulting  from  parallel,  but  slightly  differ- 
ing accounts  of  the  same  events,  was  satisfactorily 
explained  upon  this  theory,  and  there  was  left  ap- 
parently no  ground  for  Spinoza's  sweeping  state- 
ments regarding  Hebrew  literature  in  general,  and 
his  denial  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch in  particular.  The  importance  of  Astruc's 
work  consists  not  so  much  in  the  discovery  of  new 
facts,  or  in  the  use  of  new  principles,  as  in  the  con- 
sistent application  of  these  principles  in  construct- 
ing a  theory.* 

*  It  is  a  singular  coincidence  that  another  work  of  the  same 
nature  and  purport  was  published  the  same  year.  Dissertatio 
qua  disquiritur  unde  Moses  res  in  libra  Geneseos  descriptas  didi- 
cerit,  Leyden,  1753.  This  treatise  was  ascribed  erroneously  by 
Eichhorn  to  J.  J.  Schultens.  It  is  the  work  of  P.  Brouwer.  The 
view  of  the  author  is  that,  in  order  to  write  Genesis,  Moses  must 


MODERN   CRITICISM   OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     195 

Simultaneously  with  the  appearance  of  Astruc's 
work  on  Genesis  appeared  also  Lowth's  theory  of 
parallelism  in  Hebrew  poetry.*  This  theory  fur- 
nished a  new  key  to  some  of  the  problems  of 
Hebrew  literature  and  prepared  the  way  for  subse- 
quent research  in  the  subdepartment  of  literary 
form. 

It  was  thirty  years  after  the  publication  of 
Astruc's  Conjectures  that  Eichhornf  took  a  step  in 
advance  in  the  employment  of  literary 

Eichhorn. 

phenomena  as  a  basis  of  conclusions. 
He  pointed  out  the  fact  that  the  sections  of  Genesis 
in  which  the  names  of  Jehovah  and  Elohim  were 
respectively  used  were  also  characterized  by  other 
differences  of  style.  Moreover,  he  extended  the 
application  of  this  kind  of  criticism  to  the  other 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  and  first  called  this  mode 
of  procedure  the  "Higher  Criticism."  The  sum 
of  the  results  he  reached  was  that  the  Pentateuch 
consists  of  documents  written  mostly  during  the 
age  of  Moses,  some  by  Moses  himself,  and  com- 
piled some  time  between  Joshua  and  Samuel. 
These  views  he  propounded  with  vigor  and  enthu- 
siasm, and  they  found  many  adherents  in  Germany. 

have  made  use  of  sources  or  documents  existing  at  his  time  under 
the  names  of  History  of  Noah,  History  of  Jacob,  etc.  To-  these 
sources  he  refers  the  formula,  "  These  are  the  generations,"  Gene- 
sis x:  i;  xxxvii:  2,  etal.  He  stoutly  defends,  however,  the  historic 
truthfulness  and  divine  origin  of  Genesis.  After  the  appearance 
of  Astruc's  work  little  attention  was  paid  to  Brouwer's  disserta- 
tion, and  it  lapsed  into  oblivion. 

*  De  Sacra  Poesi  Hebrceorum,  pub.  1753. 

fjohann  Gottfried  Eichhorn,  1752-1827.  Einleitung  ins  Alte 
Testament,  3  vols.,  pub.  1780-83. 


196  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

J.  D.  Michaelis  first  appeared  as  an  opponent  of 

the  views  of  Astruc,  contending  that  they  were  based 

on   an  insufficient   knowledge   of   the 

J.  D.  Michaelis.  '  . 

history  of  Old  1  estament  study  since 
the  days  of  Clericus.*  Later,  however,  he  ac- 
cepted Eichhorn's  views,  with  modifications.  He 
differed  rather  in  his  attitude  and  mode  of  approach 
to  the  Scriptures  than  in  questioning  the  validity 
of  Eichhorn's  method  of  criticism.  He  saw  better 
than  the  latter  did  the  bearings  of  these  concrete 
views  on  the  theory  of  the  supernatural  origin  of 
the  Bible,  and  was  not  ready,  on  the  grounds  pre- 
sented, to  sacrifice  this  theory.  As  for  purely  crit- 
ical views,  he  was  not  over  anxious  either  to  antag- 
onize or  to  adopt  them  as  such. 

Outside  of  Germany  Astruc  and  Eichhorn  met 
with  little  favor.  In  Great  Britain,  especially,  the 
literary  phenomena  whose  explanation  occasioned 
the  analytic  theories  of  Eichhorn  were  thought  to 
be  counterbalanced  by  the  consideration  that  the 
law  given  in  the  Pentateuch  could  be  proved  his- 
torically to  have  been  observed  continuously  from 
the  days  of  Joshua  to  the  date  of  the  captivity — a 
consideration  which  has  been  since  proved  to  be 
without  force. 

Upon  the  whole,  the  net  result  at  the  end  of  this 
stage  of  the  modern  period  was  the  erection  of  a 
Results:  DOC-  view  which  has  been  termed  the  docu- 
ument-theory.  ment.theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  theory  is,  in  the  main,  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  composed,  perhaps  by  Moses  himself,  by 
the  fusion  together  of  preexisting  documents.  Of 
*  Einldtung  in  die  gottlichen  Schrifien,  pub.  1787. 


MODERN   CRITICISM    OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     197 

these  two  were  distinctly  recognized  as  constituting 
the  bulk  of  the  work  as  at  present  extant:  /'.  e.,  the 
Jehovistic  and  the  Elohistic.  This  was  essentially 
the  view  held  by  Astruc,  Jerusalem,*  Schulteus, 
Eichhorn,  and  Michaelis,  and  others.  Each  of  these 
critics,  however,  had  his  own  views  as  to  the  other 
minor  documents  in  addition  to  the  two  principal 
ones  above  mentioned,  and  also  as  to  glosses,  inter- 
polations, and  other  details. 

While,  as  already  noted,  the  views  of  Astruc  and 
Eichhorn  found  not  many  friends  in  Great  Britain, 
it  was  in  that   country  that  a  new   theory,  more 
radical  in  its  difference   from  existing  views,  was 
propounded  by  the   Roman  Catholic 
theologian  Alexander  Geddes.  f     This 
view  was  that  the  Pentateuch  was  reduced  to  its  pres- 
ent form  not  earlier  than  the  reign  of  David  nor 
later  than  that  of  Hezekiah;  most  probably  in  the 
reign  of  Solomon  and  at  Jerusalem.     "  It  was  com- 
piled from  ancient  documents,  some 
of  which  were  coeval  with  Moses,  and    theory- 
some  even  anterior  to  Moses."     This  was  called 
the  fragment-theory  and  was  grounded  on  the  same 
principles    as     the    document-theory 
of  Eichhorn.     It  was  transplanted  to 
Germany  by  J.    S.    Vater.J    Vater,    however,  dif- 

*  Letters  on  the  Mosaic  Writings  and  Philosophy. 

f  1737-1802.  The  Holy  Bible,  or  the  Books  accounted  sacred 
by  Jews  and Christians ,  faithfully  translated,  etc.;  pub.  1792-97. 
Critical  Remarks  on  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  corresponding  with 
a  new  translation  of  the  Bible,  1 800. 

\  Commentar  iiber  den  Pentateuch  mil  Einleitungen  zu  den 
einzelnen  Abschnittender  eingeschalt.  Uebers,  von  Dr.  Alexander 


198  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

fered  from  Geddes  in  ascribing  Deuteronomy  to 
the  reign  of  David;  and  the  completion  of  the 
Pentateuch,  as  it  now  stands,  to  the  period  of  the 
exile. 

The  fragment-theory  did  not  become  at  once  as 
popular  as  the  document-theory.  Some  of  its  most 
prominent  expounders  and  defenders  were  J.  G. 
Hase,*  Fulda,f  Corrodi,J  Otmar.§ 

Independent  of  the  fragment  and  document 
theories  and  occupying  a  middle  position  between 
them  appeared  Ilgen.  ||  Ilgen's  view 
is  that  Genesis  is  made  up  of  seven- 
teen documents  which,  however,  are  the  works 
of  three  independent  authors  :  The  First  Elohist, 
the  Second  Elohist,  and  the  First  Jehovist.  The 
compiler  put  the  documents  together  without  be- 

Geddes's  merkwurdigtn  kritischen  und  exegetischen  Anmerkungen. 
Halle,  1802-05. 

*  A  ussichten  zur  kiinftigen  A  ufklarung  iiber  das  A  lie  Testament, 
pub.  1785.  But  this  critic  later  returned  to  the  view  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  the  work  of  Moses  with  interpolations,  glosses, 
and  supplements,  and  a  final  redaction  by  Ezra.  So  in  Entdec- 
kungen  im  Felde  der  Altesten  Erd-  und  Menschengeschichte,  pub. 
1805. 

f  Paulus,  N.  Repertorium  III.  1791. 

\  Beleuchterung  des  Jtidischen  und  Christlichen  Sibelkanons, 
pub. 1798. 

§  This  is  the  assumed  name  of  J.  C.  Nachtigall,  Fragmente  in 
ffenke  Magazin,  vol.  iii.  pt.  2,  1794,  and  vol.  iv.  pts.  I  and  2, 

1795- 

|  Karl  David  Ilgen,  1783-1834,  Die  Urkunden  des  Jerusalem- 
itischen  Tempelarchiw  in  ihrer  Urges  tali,  etc.,  1798  ;  a  work  pro- 
jected on  a  large  scale,  but  left  unfinished  on  account  of  the 
author's  appointment  to  the  rectorship  of  Schulpforte,  the  duties 
of  which  office  absorbed  all  his  time  and  attention. 


MODERN   CRITICISM   OF   THE  OLD   TESTAMENT.     199 

stowing  any  other  work  on  them  than  that  of  fitting 
them  together.  This  he  did  more  by  selecting  and 
arranging  together  the  words  of  the  three  writers 
than  by  taking  sections  of  the  documents  and  uni- 
fying the  narrative  as  such.  Ilgen's  view,  like  that 
of  Geddes  and  Vater,  did  not  commend  itself  to  the 
critics  of  the  time.  It  was  based  too  exclusively 
on  literary  grounds. 

(B)  Use  and  development  of  the  historical  argument. — 
A  new  principle  was  introduced  into  criticism 
by  DeWette.*  This  was  the  use 

Historical 

of    historical   data  furnished   by   the     argument. 
Biblical  books  along  with   the  literary  phenomena 
of    the  books.     On   this    twofold    foundation    he 
builds  the   theory  that  Genesis  was 
the  work  of  a  writer  who  found  an      DeWette- 
Elohistic   document,  adopted  it  as  a  nucleus,  and 
added  to  it  germane  material  out  of  one  or  more, 
probably  more,  Jehovistic  documents,  thus  bring- 
ing the  book  into  its  present  form. 
This  was  called  the  supplement-theory,     theory. 
As  to  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  DeWette  taught 
that  Deuteronomy  was  composed  during  the  reign 
of  Josiah. 

The  supplement-theory  enlisted  in  its  defense 
a  large  number  of  able  scholars,  and  was  subjected 
to  modifications.  In  Germany,  Von 

,  .  .,         Von  Bohlen. 

Bohlen  f  gave  it  his  adherence,  attnb- 

*W.  M.  L.  DeWette,  1780-1849,  Beitrdge  zur  Einleitung  in 
das  Alte  Testament,  1806-07  ;  especially  vol.  ii.  Kritik  der 
Israelitiscken  Geschichte.  Also,  Lehrbuch  der  hist.-krit.  Ein- 
leitung indie  Bibel,  1817  ;  8th  ed.  by  Schrader,  1868. 

f  Die  Genesis,  pub.  1835. 


20O  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

uting,    however,    the   Jehovistic    elements    to   the 
personality  of  the  supplementer  or  author  of  Gen- 
esis.    Bleek  *   extended   the  analysis 
to  Exodus  vi:  2,  and  revived  the  view 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  not  complete  without  the 
Book   of   Joshua,    and    that    therefore   this  book, 
added  to  the  previous  five,  constitutes  with  them  a 
Tuch  Hexateuch.     Tuch  f  and  Knobel  J  at- 

Knobei.       tempted  to  trace  out  in  detail  the  line 
of  distinction  between  this  ancient  Elohistic  docu- 
ment and  the  materials  subsequently  added.     Later 
staheiin      exponents  of  this  view  substantially 
Lengerke.    are :  Staheiin  §  and  Lengerke.  || 
Half-way  between  the  supplement-theory  and  the 
document-theory   stand   the   views   of   Ewald   and 
Ewaid         Hupfeld.     Ewald  ^[  finds  in  the  pres- 
ent Pentateuch   the  Book  of  Origins 
composed  in  "  the  period  of  the  earlier  monarchy," 
or,  more  precisely,  during  the  first  half  of  the  reign 

*  1 793-1859.  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  4th  ed.  by 
Wellhausen,  1878.  Tr.  by  Venables,  London,  1869. 

f  Commentar  ilber  Genesis,  1838. 

\  Genesis  in  Hirzefs  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
Alien  Testament,  1852  ;  Exodus  und  Levit.,  1857  ;  Kritik  des 
Pentat.  und  Jos.,  1861. 

§  Kritische  Untersuchung  iiber  den  Pentateuch,  etc.,  1843. 

||  Kenaan  Volks-  und  Religionsgeschichte  Israels  bis  zum  Tode 
des  Josua,  1844. 

IT  G.  H.  A.  Ewald,  1803-57,  was  an  extraordinary  genius,  com- 
bining in  his  personality  the  traits  of  a  great  linguist,  an  acute 
theologian,  a  critic,  and  a  devout  man.  Exception  has  been  taken 
to  his  supercilious  way  of  treating  scholars  who  differed  from  him 
in  results,  and  his  self-consciousness  ;  but  the  value  of  his  services 
to  critical  scholarship  cannot  be  overrated.  He  founded  no  school 
and  originated  no  new  method,  but  faithfully  applied  principles 


MODERN    CRITICISM   OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     2OI 

of  Solomon.  To  this  were  added  materials  from 
three  earlier  writings,  /'.  e.,  (a)  the  Book  of  the  Wars 
of  Jahveh,  (b)  the  Biography  of  Moses,  and  (c)  the 
Book  of  the  Covenants,  which  was  composed  about 
the  beginning  of  Samson's  judgeship.  Subse- 
quently this  Book  of  Origins  was  enlarged  by  the 
Third  Narrator,  who  lived  during  the  tenth  or  ninth 
century  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel;  again  by  a  Fourth 
Narrator,  who  flourished  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah 
in  the  first  half  or  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century, 
under  Uzziah  or  Jotham,  and  a  Fifth  Narrator,  who 
revised  the  work  thus  grown  at  the  time  of  Uzziah 
or  Jotham,  /'.  e.,  during  the  first  half  or  the  middle 
of  the  eighth  century.  Still  later,  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  king  of  Judah,  or 
about  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century,  the  Book 
of  Deuteronomy  was  composed,  and  the  Blessing 
of  Moses  *  perhaps,  under  Josiah.  crystaiiiza- 
Deuteronomy  was  originally  a  larger  tion-theory. 
independent  history,  parallel  to  the  Book  of  Origins, 
but  the  last  reviser  of  this  latter  work,  extract- 
ing the  present  book  of  Deuteronomy  out  of  it, 
fused  it  with  the  Pentateuch  about  the  end  of 
the  seventh  century.  This  view  of  Ewald's  was 
called  by  Delitzsch  f  the  Crystallization  hypothesis.  It 

already  known  with  such  skill  and  insight  as  to  stimulate  others 
to  work  in  this  field.  His  views  are  best  presented  in  his  .Die 
Poetische  Bucher  des  Alien  Bundes,  1835-39  ;  3d  ed.  1868  ;  Eng. 
trans.  1880  ;  Die  Propheten  des  Alten  Bundes,  1840-41  ;  zd  ed. 
1867 ;  Eng.  trans.  1876-81,  and  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel ', 
1 843-59  ;  3d  ed.  1868  ;  Eng.  trans.,  or  equivalent  work,  History 
of  Israel,  1867-74, 

*  Deuteronomy  xxxiii. 

f  Com.  Gen,,  1st.  ed.,  p.  29. 


202  THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

did  not  find  any  considerable  number  of  adherents 
in  Germany.  In  England  Perowne  and  Stanley 
gave  their  adherence  to  Ewald's  critical  work  in 
general.  Stanley  especially  adopted  his  views  in 
his  History  of  the  Jewish  Church. 

Hupf eld  *  approached  the  subject  independently 
of  his  predecessors.     Consequently,  he  reached  con- 
clusions   that    appear     to    be     more 

Hupfeld.  .     . 

thoroughgoing  in  their  modifications 
of  the  supplement-theory;  more  in  the  nature  of  a 
return  to  the  document-theory.  Without  knowing 
of  the  work  of  Ilgen  he  arrived  at  the  same  result 
as  that  critic,  so  far  as  the  number  and  general  char- 
acter of  the  sources  of  the  Pentateuch  are  con- 
cerned. He  found  three  primary  documents  or 
sources,  a  First  Elohist,  a  Second  Elohist,  and  a 
Jehovist;  these  three  documents  were  fused 
together  faithfully  and  skilfully  by  a  redactor. 
This  theory  has  served  as  the  basis  of  subsequent 
critical  analysis.  Bohmer  presented  Hupfeld's 
results  to  the  eye  through  the  use  of  different  type 
in  an  edition  of  Genesis,  f  The  analysis  thus  pre- 
sented was  accepted  by  Kurtz,  J  Franz  Delitzsch,§ 
Schrader,  |  and  in  the  8th  ed.  of  DeWette's  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament,  1869,  it  was  elaborated  by 

*  Die  Quellen  der  Genesis  und  die  Art  ihrer  Zusammenfas- 
sung,  1853. 

f  E.  B6hmer,  Liber  Geneseos  pentateuchicus,  1860,  and  a  trans- 
lation, Das  erste  Such  der  Thora,  1862. 

\  Gesckickte  des  Alien  Bundes,  1855. 

§  Die  Genesis,  3d  ed.  1 860. 

|  Studien  zur  Kritik  und  Erkldrung  der  biblischen  Urge- 
schichte,  1863. 


MODERN   CRITICISM   OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.     203 

the  attachment  of  different  names  to  the  sources. 
Noldeke  *  labored  to  show  that  the  work  of  the 
Second  Elohist  was  already  embodied  in  that  of  the 
Jehovist  before  it  was  used  by  the  redactor. 

(C)   Use  and  development  of  the  theological  argu- 
ment.— This  argument    was  first  used   during  the 
middle  years  of  the  fourth  decade  of      Theological 
the  present  century.    It  appears  simul-    areument. 
taneously  in  the  writings  of  two  scholars,  Wilhelm 
Vatke  and   Leopold    George.     Vatke  f   contended 
that    the    legislation   of  the    Penta- 
teuch was  too  elaborate,  as  compared 
with  the  religious  ideas  of  the  later  age,  to  be  as 
much  older  as  it  is  believed  to  be.     This  legislation 
is  a  growth  whose  beginnings,  perhaps,  may  go  back 
to  the  Mosaic  period  and  activity,  but  whose  present 
form  is  much  later  than  the  prophetic  activity  of  the 
eighth  century.     Vatke  was  an  enthusiastic  pupil  of 
Hegel's,  and  his  view  is  based  on  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy  and  the  further 
postulate  that  the   religion  of  Israel  was    subject 
precisely  to  the  same  law  of  develop- 

George 

ment  as  all  other  religions.     George  \ 
placed  the  whole  of  the  Levitical  legislation  after 
the  exile,  agreeing  with  the  assignment  of  Deute- 
ronomy to  the  time  of  Tosiah.   Reuss,S 

Reuss. 

the  eminent  scholar  of  Strasburg,  also 

*  Alttestamentliche  Liter atur,  1868  ;  Untersuchungen  zur 
Kritik  des  Alien  Testamentes ,  1869. 

f  Die  Biblische  Theologie  ivissenschaftlich  dargestellt,  1835. 

\  Die  Alteren  Jtidische  Feste,  1835. 

§  Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  des  Alien  Testamentes, 
1888-91. 


204  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

claims  to  have  reached  this  conclusion  independently, 
as  early  as  1834.  But  his  views  were  not  published 
until  long  after  the  method  of  theological  criticism 
had  been  used  by  others  and  the  views  associated 
with  it  had  found  currency.*  A  pupil  of  Reuss', 
however,  was  destined  to  give  this  new  phase  of 
criticism  its  popular  form.  Graf  f 

Graf. 

insisted  on  the  priority  of  Deuteron- 
omy to  the  ritual  law,  or,  as  it  came  to  be  called,  the 
priest  code.  He  further  taught  that  the  ritual  law 
was  the  work  of  Ezekiel,  and  that  additions  were 
made  to  it  after  the  time  of  Ezra.  Graf  was  also 
the  first  to  combine  the  results  of  the  literary  his- 
torical analysis  of  Hupfeld  with  the  reconstruction 
of  the  history  of  Israelitish  religion  undertaken  by 
himself.  His  first  view  ignored  Hupfeld's  analysis. 
Its  essence  was  the  proposition  that  the  whole 
Levitical  legislation  was  post-exilic.  When  his 
attention  was  called  to  the  fact  that  this  legislation 
was  contained  in  a  document  marked  by  literary 
characteristics  of  its  own  and  known  as  Elohistic, 
he  accepted  the  suggestion  and  referred  the  whole 
document  to  the  period  after  the  exile.  The  reverse 
of  this  process  was  illustrated  in  the 
course  of  the  next  important  critic, 
Abraham  Kuenen,J  who  appeared  at  first  as  the 
adherent  of  the  literary  and  historical  criticism  as 
resulting  in  the  analysis  of  Hupfeld;  but  adopted 

*  See  also  JJhistoire  Sainteet  la  Lot,  1879,  PP-  23>  24- 

f  K.  H.  Graf,  Die  Geschichtlichen  Backer  des  Alien    Testa- 

mentes,  1 866. 

\  Historisch  kritisch  Onderzoek  naar  het  Onstaan  en  de  Verzame- 

lingvande  boekendes  Oudes  Ver  bonds,  Leyden,  1861-65,  3  vols. 


MODERN    CRITICISM   OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.     20$ 

the  development  theory  from  Graf  *  and  gave  it 
more  definite  shape.  He  taught  that  the  religion  of 
Israel  is  a  purely  natural  religion;  beginning,  like  all 
other  great  religions,  with  polytheism,  and  develop- 
ing gradually  into  the  monotheistic  and  spiritual 
system  of  the  prophets  of  Israel,  f  The  theory 
and  method  of  Graf  found  another 

f       i  -I-,        •        T    1-         TIT   11         Wellhausen. 

champion  of  ability  m  Julius  Well- 
hausen. J  Wellhausen's  work  consists  in  the  elabor- 
ation of  the  Grafian  theory.  This  theory,  as  now 
accepted  by  a  large  number  of  critics,  Grafian  school: 
may  be  succinctly  put  as  follows  :  The  results- 
credible  recorded  history  of  Israel  dates  from  the 
days  of  Samuel.  With  this  prophet  begins  the 
crystallization  also  of  the  religion  of  Israel  into  its 
present  form.  The  process  thus  begun  continues 
through  centuries.  The  Hexateuch  is  a  composite 
work,  whose  origin  and  history  may  be  traced  in 
four  distinct  stages:  (i)  A  writer  designated  as  J 
Jahvist,  or  Jehovist,  or  Judean  prophetic  historian, 
composed  a  history  of  the  people  of  Israel  about 
800  B.  c.  (2)  A  writer  designated  as  E  Elohist,  or 

*  De  Godesdienst  -van  Israel  tot  den  ondergong  van  den  Jood- 
schen  Staat,  Haarlem,  1869-70  ;  Eng.  trans.  Religion  of  Israel, 
1874-75.  Also,  De  Prof  e ten  en  dieprofetie  onder  Israel,  Leyden, 
1875;  Eng._trans.  1877;  and  Hibbert  Lectures,  National  Religions 
and  Universal  Religion,  1882. 

\  For  a  critical  estimate  of  Kuenen  see  W.  J.  Beecher,  "  The 
Logical  Methods  of  Professor  Kuenen,"  Presbyterian  Review, 
vol.  iii.  p.  701  seq. 

%  Die  Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  1889,  published  previously  as 
apart  of  Skizzen  und  Vorarbeiten,  1885,  and  Prolegomena  zur 
Geschichte  Israels,  1883  and  1886,  published  in  1878  as  Geschichte 
Israels,  vol.  i. 


206  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Ephraimite  prophetic  historian,  wrote  a  similar 
work  some  fifty  years  later,  or  about  750  B.  c. 
These  two  were  used  separately  for  a  time,  but 
fused  together  into  JE  by  a  redactor,  at  the  end 
of  the  seventh  century.  (3)  A  writer  of  a  different 
character  wrote  a  book  constituting  the  main  por- 
tion of  our  present  Deuteronomy  during  the  reign 
of  Josiah,  or  a  short  time  before  621  B.  c.  This 
writer  is  designated  D.  To  his  work  were  added  an 
introduction  and  an  appendix,  and  with  these  accre- 
tions it  was  united  with  JE  by  a  second  redactor, 
constituting  JED.  (4)  Contemporaneously  with 
Ezekiel  the  ritual  law  began  to  be  reduced  to  writ- 
ing. It  first  appeared  in  three  parallel  forms. 
These  were  codified  by  Ezra  not  very  much  earlier 
or  later  than  444  B.  c.,  and  between  that  date  and 
280  B.C.  it  was  joined  with  JED  by  a  final  redactor. 
This  general  view,  always  allowing  modifications 
in  minor  details,  was  accepted  by  a  large  number 
Grafian  school:  °f  European  and  American  scholars, 

in  Germany.  &nd    may  be   gaid    tQ    bg   thfi   dominant 

view  at  the  present  time.  Among  its  adherents  are 
Kayser,*  Smend,f  Karl  Budde,J  Bernhard  Stade,§ 
Franz  DelitzschJ  C.  H.  Cornill,!  Kautzsch  and 

*  Das  vorexilische  Buck  der  Urgeschichte  und  seine  Erweite- 
rungen,  Strasburg,  1874. 

f  Der  Prophet  Ezekiel,  1880;  Lehrbuch  der  Altlestamentlichen 
Religionsgeschichte ;  Freiburg,  i.  B.  1893. 

\Die  biblische  Urgeschichte,  Giessen,  1883;  Die  Biicher 
Richter  und  Samuel,  Giessen,  1890. 

§  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  Berlin,  1887,  1888,  2  vols.;  1st 
vol.  in  2d  ed.  1889. 

||  Neuer  Kommentar  uber  Genesis,  1887. 

^f  Einleitung in  das  Alte  Testament,  Freiburg,  i.  B.  1891  ;  2d 
ed.  1892. 


MODERN    CRITICISM   OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     207 

Socin,*  Konig,  f  Hermann  Schultz,  J  Duhm,§  Sieg- 
fried,! Holzinger,!"  and  Bruno  Baentsch.**  In 
Great  Britain  a  vigorous  attack  on  the  traditional 
view  of  the  Pentateuch  was  made  by  Colenso,ff 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  histori- 

I-/Y-  •  •  •  Colenso. 

cal  difficulties  involved  in  that  view. 
The  earliest  exponent  of  the  Grafian  hypothesis  was 
Kalisch.JJ    But  the  first  to  make  a  systematic  presen- 
tation of  it  was  W.  Robertson  Smith.  §§     These  have 
been  followed  by  a  large  number  of  more  recent  schol- 
ars, among  them   S,  R.  Driver,  ||||    T.       English 
K.  Cheyne,ft  H.  E.  Ryle,***  and  C.     Orafian  critics. 
G.   Montefiore.  tff     In  America   these  views  have 

*  Die  Genesis  mit  atisseren  Untersuchungen  der  Quellenschrif- 
ten  iibersetzt,  Freiburg,  i.  B.  1891. 

\  Der  Offenbarungsbegriff  das  Alien  Testaments,  1882  ;  Einlei- 
tung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1893. 

\  Alttestamentliche  Theologie,  ist  ed.  1869 ;  4th  ed.  1889  ; 
Eng.  trans.  1892. 

§  Theologie  der  Propheten,  Bonn,  1875. 

\Hcbraisches  Worterbuch,  in  conjunction  with  Stade,  1892. 

•Jl"  Einleitung  in  den  Hexateuch,  Freiburg,  i.  B.  1893. 

**  Das  Bundesbuch,  Halle,  1892  ;  Das  Heiligkeitsgesetz,  Erfurt, 
1893. 

ft  The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua,  critically  examined,  ^ 
parts,  1862-79. 

\\  Commentary  on  Leviticus,  1867-72. 

§§  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  Edinburgh,  1881, 
2d  ed.  1892  ;  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  Edinburgh,  1882. 

II  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Edinburgh,  1891  ;  4th  ed.  1892. 

Tf*[f  The  Origin  and  Religious  Content  of  the  Psalter,  Bampton 
Lectures  for  1889  ;  London,  1891.  Founders  of  Old  Testament 
Criticism,  1892. 

***  The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  1893. 

fff  Lectures  on  the  Origin  and  Growth  of  Religion  as  illustrated 
by  the  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  1892, 


208  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

been  adopted  by  C.    H.    Toy,*  C.  A.  Briggs,f  H. 
P.,  Smith,  J   and   B.    W.    Bacon.  §      In    France   by 
American       Westphal, ||  Bruston,^"  Darmstetter,** 
^French          and   Piepenbring.ff     In   Holland    by 
critics.  Wildboer  JJ  and  Knappert.§§ 

These  conclusions  are,  however,  controverted  by 
a  school  of  critics,  who,  accepting  the  analysis  of 
school  of  Dm-  Hupfeld,   do    not    follow    Graf    and 
mann.  Kuenen  as  to  the  priority  of  the  his- 

torical documents  to  the  priestly  legislation,  but 
hold,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  legislation  is  earlier 
than  the  documents  J  and  E,  and  that  Deuteronomy 
is  the  latest  of  the  parts  of  the  Hexateuch.  So 
DillmannJ!  Riehm,ff  Kittel,  ***  Baudissin,ftf 
Ryssel,JJJ  and  H.  L.  S  track.  §§§ 

*  Judaism  and  Christianity,  1890  ;  History  of  the  Religion  of 
Israel,  1882  ;  3d  ed.  1884. 

f  Biblical  Study,  1883  ;  4th  ed.  1891  ;  The  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  the  Reason,  1 892 ;  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  1 893. 

\  Biblical  Scholarship  and  Inspiration,  1891. 

§  Genesis  of  Genesis,  1892;  The  Triple  Tradition  of  the  Exodus, 
1894. 

||  Les  Sources  du  Pentateuque,  1888-92. 

T[  Les  Quatres  Sources  des  Lois  de  I' Exode,  1883. 

**  Die  Philosophic  der  Geschichte  des  Jiidischen  Volkes,  1884. 

\\  Thtologie  de  tAncien  Testament,  1886  ;  Eng.  trans.  1893. 

\\Het  Onstaan  van  den  Kanon  des  Ouden  Verbonds,  1889. 

§§  The  Religion  of  Israel,  1878. 

HI  Kurzgefdsstes  Exegetisches  Handbuch  zum  Alien  Testament, 
vols.  i.-iii.,  including  Genesis,  6th  ed.  1892  ;  Exod,  und  Lev.,  2d 
e.d.  1880  ;  Num.,  Deut.,  und  Jos.,  2d  ed.  1886. 

ITl"  Alttcstamentliche  Theologie,  1889  ;  Einleitung  in  das  Alte 
Testament,  1889-90. 

***  Geschichte  der  Hebrder,  1888-92. 

fff  Die  Geschichte  des  Alttestamentlichen  Priestertums,  1889. 

\\\  De  Elohista  Pentateuchi  Sermone,  1878. 

§§§  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  new  ed.  1895. 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     209 

He  who  keeps  in  mind  the  distinction  already 
fully  drawn  between  principles,  methods,  and  results 
of  the  Higher  Criticism  will  be  able  older  English 
to  see  that  there  has  been  from  the  conservatives, 
beginning  no  serious  opposition  to  the  development 
and  application  of  the  principles.  The  validity  of 
the  results  announced,  however,  has  been  disputed 
all  along  the  way.  Bishop  Marsh  *  defended  the 
authenticity  of  the  five  books  of  Moses  against 
Eichhorn  and  Astruc.  In  this  course  he  was  com- 
mended and  followed  by  T.  H.  Home,  f 

J  Home. 

Both  of  these  writers  used  reasoning 
based  on  the  principles  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 
Marsh  alleged  that  the  ceremonial  system  contained 
in  the  Pentateuch  had  been  used  by  the  Israelites 
"from  the  time  of  their  departure  out  of  Egypt  till 
their  dispersion  at  the  taking  of  Jerusalem" ;  and  the 
ceremonial  law  being  thus  traceable  to  Moses'  time, 
the  writings  in  which  it  was  to  be  found  must  be 
Moses"  works.  Home  reasoned  that  Moses  used 
no  preexisting  documents  in  composing  Genesis, 
"because  he  is  totally  silent  as  to  any  documents 
consulted  by  him."  He  also  cited,  as  a  proof  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  in  existence  during  the  time 
of  David,  "  the  number  of  allusions  made  in  his 
Psalms  to  its  contents."  The  principles  on  which 
this  reasoning  as  well  as  that  of  Bishop  Marsh 
was  based  are  sound,  though  the  basis  of  fact 
alleged  is  not.  In  Germany  it  was  not  until  the 

*  Quoted  by  Briggs  in  "Critical  Study  of  the  History  of  the 
Higher  Criticism,"  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  iv.  p.  91. 

f  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  1818;  I4th  ed.  1877. 


210  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

views  of  DeWette  were  put  forth  that  opposition 
to  criticism  manifested  itself;  and  here,  too,  it  was 
not  the  principles  themselves  for  their  application 
to  the  Scriptures,  but  the  blow  dealt  through  the 
critical  method  at  the  authority  of  Scripture  that 
created  opposition.  And  this  opposition  made  use 
of  the  same  considerations  as  the  criticism  itself  to 
which  it  arose  as  a  protest.  The  earliest  of  the 
defenders  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch were  T.  G.  Hasse  *  B.  Kelle,  f 

Earlier    Ger- 
man conserva-    C.    H.     Fritsche.t     T.    G.    Scheibel.8 

ti  VCS 

Jahn,  ||  Rosenmiiller,l[  Herz,**  Hug,ff 
Sack,JJ  Pustkuchen,§§  Kanne,||||  C.  W.  Meyer,  ff 

*  Entdeckungen  im  Felde  der  A  lies  ten  Erd-  und  Menschen- 
geschichte,  1805. 

f  Vorurteilsfreie  Wurdigung  der  Mosaischen  Schriften,  1812. 

J  Priifung  der  Griinde  mil  welchen  neuerlich  die  Echtheit  der 
Biicher  Mosis  bestritten  warden  ist,  1814. 

^Untersuch  iiber  Bibel-  und Kirchen-geschichte,  1816. 

|  In  Bengal's  Archiv,  vol.  ii.,  Beitrage  zur  Vertheidigung  der 
Echtheit  des  Pentateuches,  1818,  and  vol.  iii.,  Ueber  das  frag- 
mentarische  desselben  und  die  vorgeblichen  Anachronismen,  1819. 

T  Scholia  in  Vetus  Testamentum,  Pars  /.,  1821. 

**  Sind  in  den  Bite  hern  der  Konige  Spur  en  des  Pentateuches  und 
der  Mosaischen  Geschichte  zu  finden  ?  1822. 

\\Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  des  Samaritanischen  Pentateuchs, 
Freiburg.  Zeitschrift,  ytes  Heft,  and  Untersuchungen  ilber  das 
Alter  der  Schreibkunst  bei  den  Hebraern,  Ibid.,  4tes  Heft. 

\\De  usu  nominutn  Dei  i^tf  et  ^n*  in  libra  Geneseos,  1821  ; 
Christliche  Apologetik,  ist  ed.  1829. 

§§  Historisch-Kritische  Untersuchungen  der  Biblischen  Urge- 
schichte,  1823. 

HI  Biblische  Untersuchungen,  Part  I.  against  Vater,  1819  ; 
Part  II.  against  DeWette,  1820. 

Tf^f  Apolog ie  der  geschichtlichen  Auffassung  der  historischen 
Biicher  des  Allen  Tesfamentes,  1811. 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.      211 

and  Staudlin.*  All  these  works  are  based  on  the 
recognition  as  valid  of  the  methods  through  which 
the  views  they  attempt  to  refute  were  secured;  they 
differ  in  using  these  methods  on  other  postulates 
and  principles. 

Among  these  earlier  defenses  of  the  older  views 
may  be  mentioned  also  Ewald's  first  critical  efforts,  f 
Bertholdt's,t  and  Herbst's.  §  These,  however,  are 
far  less  strenuous  in  their  insistence  on  the  precise 
form  of  the  traditional  views.  Ewald's  first  con- 
tention was  that  the  parallelisms,  discrepancies,  and 
confusions  of  the  historical  portions  of  the  Penta- 
teuch were  the  natural  result  of  the  historiographical 
methods  of  primitive  Oriental  writers.  He  believed 
in  the  unity  of  the  work.  Bertholdt  believed  in 
distinguishing,  as  the  critics  of  the  opposite  school 
had  not  done,  between  the  Mosaic  origin  and  the 
subsequent  revision  of  the  Pentateuch.  While  he 
insisted  on  the  former  he  believed  also  in  the  latter. 
Herbst  was  in  accord  with  this  conclusion  of  Bert- 
holdt's,  but  would  have  placed  the  revision,  not  as 
Bertholdt  did,  during  the  reign  of  David  or  Solomon, 
but  later. 

With  the  appearance  of  the  theories  of  Vatke  and 
George  another  group  of  defenders  of  the  traditional 
views  arose.  The  most  prominent  Later  German 
representatives  of  this  group  are  conservatives- 

*  Die  Echiheit  der  Mosdischen  Gf  seize  vertheidigt  in  Bertholdt's 
Krit.  Jou.,  vols.  iii.  and  iv.,  1825. 

f  Die  Composition  der  Genesis  kritisch  untersucht,  1823. 

\  Biblische  Einleitung,  1813. 

§  Observations  de  Pentateuchi  4  librorum  posteriorum  auctore 
et  editore,  1817. 


212  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

Ranke,*  Bruno  Bauer,  f  L.  K6nig,J  F.  C.  Movers,  § 
Drechsler,  ||  B.  Welte,^[  A.  C.  Havernick,**  and, 
most  uncompromising  of  them  all,  E.  W.  Hengsten- 
berg.  ff  Hengstenberg  started  with  the  postulate 
that  "  the  recognition  of  the  genuine- 

Hengstenberg. 

ness  of  the  Pentateuch  is  impossible 
from  the  rationalistic  point  of  view,  even  though  the 
strongest  considerations  should  support  it."  "For 
the  believer  the  genuineness  is  settled  before  his- 
torico-critical  investigation  of  detail.  The  Penta- 
teuch is  attested  by  the  Lord  and  his  disciples,  and 
their  testimony  is  sealed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  him 
who  with  faith  immerses  himself  in  the  content  of 
these  books.  "JJ  Havernick's  and  Hengstenberg's 
standpoint  was  adopted  by  Keil.§§ 
The  literary  facts,  such  as  the  alterna- 
tion of  the  divine  names  in  the  first  chapters  of 
Genesis,  are  explained  by  the  critics  of  this  school 

*  Untersuchungen   ilber  den  Pentateuch  aus  dem    Geblete  der 
hoheren  Kritik,  2  vols.,   1834-40. 

f  Der  Mosdische  Ur sprung  der  Gestzgebung  des  Pentateuches 
vertheidigt,  Zeitschrift  f.  Specul.  Theologie,  I,  1836. 

\Alttest.  Studien,  2tes  Heft,  1839. 

§  Uber  die  Auffindung  des  Gestzesbuches  Josia,  Zeitschrift  fur 
phil.  und  kath.  Theologie,  I2tes  Heft,  1834-35. 

I  Die  Einheit  und  Echtheit  der  Genesis,  1838  ;   Die  Unwissen- 
schaftlichkeit  im  Gebiete  der  Alttestamentlichen  Kritik,  1837. 

^f  Nachmosaisches  im  Pentateuch  beleuchtet,  1841. 

**  Handbuch    der     historisch-kritischen    Einleitung    in    das 
Alte  Testament,  1836. 

ft  Beitrdge  zur  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1836-38 ;  Die 
Authentic  des  Pentateuches,  2  vols.,  1836-39. 

\\  Genuineness  of  the  Pent.,  Prolegomena,  pp.  Ixxvi,  Ixxvii. 

^Lehrbuch  der  hist.-kril.,  Einleitung  in  die  kanon.  Schriften 
des  Alien  Testamentes,  1853,  3d  ed.  1873. 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     213 

in  harmony  with  the  view  of  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  whole  Pentateuch.  The  language  is  specially 
chosen  by  Moses  on  account  of  fitness  to  express 
some  special  phase  of  thought.  This  standpoint, 
after  a  time  of  eclipse,  has  been  revived  recently  in 
Germany  and  Holland  by  Ad.  Zahn,*  O.  Naumann,  f 
and  Hoedemaker.  J 

But  while  comparatively  neglected  in  Germany, 
the  works  of  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  and  Keil 
have  exerted  a  considerable  influence  influence  of 
in  the  English-speaking  world.  They  «««*«*«*• 
have  furnished  an  explanation  of  the  literary  and 
historical  facts  brought  to  light  by  the  critics  of  the 
opposite  school  consistent  to  that  sense  of  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  which  has  always  been 
recognized  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  mind.  Thus  the 
older  writers  on  the  Pentateuchal  question  were 
almost  universally  adherents  of  this  standpoint. 
Bishop  Colenso's  publications  on  the  Pentateuch 
occasioned  a  storm  of  opposition  both  in  Great 
Britain  and  in  the  United  States. 

Not  till  after  the  accession  of  such  scholars  as  W. 
Robertson  Smith,  Driver,  Cheyne,  Briggs,  and  Toy  to 
the  opposing  ranks,  did  this  standpoint  English  con- 
lose  any  of  its  hold.  And  even  after  servatives- 
the  able  presentations  of  these  scholars,  defenses  of 
great  ability  and  critical  acumen  have  been  made  of 

*  Das  Deuteronomium,  1890. 

f  Das  Erste  Buck  der  Bibel  nach  seintr  inneren  Einheit  und 
Echtheit  dargestellt,  1890  ;  Wellhauscn's  Methode  Kritisch  bel- 
euchtet,  1886. 

\  De  Mozaische  Oor sprang  -van  de  Wetten  in  de  boeken  Lcvit. , 
Exod.,  en  Numeri,  Leyden,  1895. 


214  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

the  old  views  by  such  scholars  as  Alfred  Cave,* 
Stanley  Leathes, f  James  Robertson, J  J.  J.  Lias,§ 
A.  Blomfield, I  F.  B.  Spencer, f  R.  A.  Watson,** 

Americans         anC*  t^16  autnors    °f   L£X  MoSdica,\\  be- 

sides  many  others  in  Great  Britain, 
and  W.  H.  Green, \\  E.  C.  Bissell,§§  Howard 
Osgood,||||  Stebbins,H  C.  M.  Mead,***  W.  J. 
Beecher,ttfG.  Vos,JJJandT.  W.  Chambers. §§§  In 
grouping  all  these  scholars  together  it  is  not  implied 
that  there  are  no  differences  among  them  on  minor 
details,  as  there  are  among  the  critics  of  the  opposed 
school,  but  simply  that  these  adhere  to  the  integrity 
and  substantial  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 

*  The  Battle  of  the  Standpoints,  1890  ;  The  Inspiration  of  the 
Old  Testament  Inductively  Considered,  1886. 

f  The  Law  in  the  Prophets,  1891. 

\  Early  Religion  of  Israel,  1889  ;  2d  ed.  1892. 

^Principles  of  Biblical  Criticism,  1893. 

||  The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Criticism,  1893. 

*|[  Did  Moses  Write  the  Pentateuch  after  all?  1892. 

**  The  Law  and  the  Prophets,  1884. 

ft  Lex  Mosaica,  or  The  Law  of  Moses  and  the  Higher  Criticism. 
Edited  by  Richard  Valpy  French,  D.  C.  L.,  LL.  D.,  F.  S.  A. 

\\  The  Pentateuch  Vindicated  from  the  Aspersions  of  Bishop 
Colenso,  1863  ;  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  1883  ;  The  Hebrew 
Feasts,  1885. 

§§  The  Pentateuch,  its  Origin  and  Structure,  1885  ;  Genesis 
Printed  in  Colors,  1891. 

HI  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  in  the  American  ed.  of 
Lange's  Commentary,  1876. 

1F1M  Study  of  the  Pentateuch,  1881. 

***  Christ  and  Criticism,  1892. 

f  f  f  "  The  Logical  Methods  of  Professor  Kuenen,"  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Review,  vol.  iii.  p.  701. 

#\  The  Mosaic  Origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes,  1 886. 

%%%Mosfs  and  his  Recent  Critics,  1889. 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     215 

An  entirely  independent  view  of  the  origin  and 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch  has  been  recently 
put  forth  by  Dr.  Aug.  Klostermann.*  Kiostermann: 
The  fundamental  principles  of  this  unitiue  view- 
view  are  :  (i)  As  to  method,  that  the  problem  should 
be  approached  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  body 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  not  from  the  point  of  view 
of  a  narrow  range  of  literary  phenomena  in  Genesis, 
such  as  are  found  in  the  first  few  chapters  of  that 
book.  (2)  That  the  variations  in  parallel  accounts 
are  such  as  arose  in  the  cause  of  multiplication  and 
circulation  of  copies  of  an  original.  Instead  of 
finding  documents  J,  E,  P,  and  D,  therefore,  Kloster- 
mann finds  various  recensions  of  the  same  primitive 
writings.  (3)  In  the  effort  to  find  the  original  form 
of  these  recensions,  he  finds  an  original  nucleus  of 
legislation  and  an  envelope  of  history.  The  present 
Pentateuch  is  simply  the  weaving  together  by  Ezra 
of  the  various  recensions  of  this  original  Pentateuch. 

2.    THE   QUESTION    OF    ISAIAH. 

Although  the  Pentateuchal  question  has  fur- 
nished the  chief  occasion  and  subject  for  discus- 
sion, and  served  as  the  main  and  Pentateuch  cen. 
primary  channel  for  the  stream  of  ter  of interest- 
the  history  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  hence 
abundantly  illustrates  the  development  of  the 
science  as  a  science,  nevertheless  the  application 
of  its  principles  has  been  broader.  As  soon  as 
developed  in  its  various  stages,  this  science  has  been 

*  Der  Pentateuch,  Beitrage  zu  selnem    Verstandnis  und  seine 
Entstehungs  Geschichte,  1893. 


2l6  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

carried  to  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  In 
fact,  every  book  of  this  part  of  the  Bible  has  been 
made  the  subject  of  minute  investigation  through 
the  new  process,  and  a  multitude  of  theories  have 
been  propounded,  not  merely  on  the  aggregate  of 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  also  on  each  of 
them  separately.  To  attempt  to  give  an  account  of 
these  would  lead  us  into  the  field  of  special  intro- 
duction. It  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purposes  to 
pass  in  review,  very  concisely,  the  course  of  criticism 
as  applied  to  the  most  important  of  the  questions 
raised. 

Next  in  importance  to  the  Pentateuch  question, 
in  its  bearings  on  theological  opinion  and  theory  of 
2.  Question  of   religion,  is  the  question  of  the  book  of 
Isaiah-  Isaiah.     This  question  was  first  sug- 

gested by  Koppe  in  his  German  translation  of 
Lowth's  Isaiah*  It  is  a  question  of  integrity. 
Did  the  prophet  write  the  whole  of  the  book  bearing 
his  name  at  present  ?  Koppe's  conclusions  were 
negative.  Kocher  answered  him  in  the  Vindicia, 
1786.  Doederlein,  however, f  renewed  the  attack 
on.  the  integrity,  and  was  followed  by  Eichhorn.J 
The  theory  of  more  than  one  author  was  elaborated 
constructively  by  Justi.  §  It  was  then  accepted  by 
Bertholdt,  1812;  DeWette,  1817;  Gesenius,  1820; 
Hitzig,  1833  ;  Umbreit  and  Ewald,  1841.  With 
Ewald  the  analytic  theory  was  lifted  up  to  a  high 
scholarly  plane.  It  has  gained  adherents  con- 
stantly since.  To  trace  its  course  would  be  to 

*  Pub.  1778.  f  Esaias  ex  textu  Hebr.,  1889. 

\HebrtiischePropheten,  1816-19. 
§  Paulus'  Memorab.,  iv.  p.  139,  seq. 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.     217 

enumerate  the  whole  literature  of  the  book  of  Isaiah. 
It  may  suffice  to  say  that  the  question  soon  assumed 
a  definite  form,  and  has  been  argued  by  those  who 
divide  the  book  into  three  parts  in  general,  /.  e. : 
(i)  The  first  thirty-five  chapters  as  a  part  by  itself, 
a  work  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  in  the  main  ;  (2)  chap- 
ters xxxvi.-xxxix.,  as  a  historical  appendix  to  the 
first  part  ;  and  (3)  chapters  xl.-lxvi.,  the  writing  of 
another  prophet  who  flourished  at  the  end  of  the 
period  of  the  Exile,  commonly  called  Deutero- 
Isaiah.  Later  critics  have  carried  the  process  of 
analysis  into  these  sections.  In  the  first  section — 
i.-xxxv. — chapters  xxiv.-xxvii.  have 

Recent  phases. 

been  separated  and  assigned  to  the 
first  part  of  the  post-exilic  period.*  The  third  sec- 
tion of  Isaiah  is  further  subdivided  and  assigned  by 
Duhm — with  whom  Smend  and  others  agree  more 
or  less  thoroughly — to  at  least  three  authors,  viz. : 
(i)  The  Deutero-Isaiah,  who  composed  chapters  xl.- 
Iv.  with  the  exception  of  the  "  Servant  of  Jehovah  " 
passages;  (2)  The  author  of  the  "Servant  of 
Jehovah"  passages;  and  (3)  the  author  of  chapters 
Ivi.-lxvi.  This  development  of  the  question  has, 
however,  not  fully  crystallized,  and  may  be  passed 
over  with  a  mere  mention.  The  reasoning  for  this 
analysis  is  precisely  the  same  as  the  threefold  argu- 
ment for  the  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch.  It  includes 
considerations  drawn  from  the  language,  history, 

*So  Knobel,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Delitzsch,  Dillmann,  Cheyne,  and 
Driver.  G.  Adam  Smith  doubts  the  Isaianic  origin  of  this  pas- 
sage, but  fails  to  assign  it  any  definite  date  or  authorship. 
Kuenen  and  Smend  find  it  to  be  the  work  of  some  author  belong- 
ing to  the  fourth  century  B.  c. 


2l8  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

and  theological  content  of  the  book.*  The  last  of 
these  classes  of  considerations,  that  of  theological 
content,  involves,  however,  a  new  line  of  discussion, 
that  concerning  predictive  prophecy.  The  applica- 
tion of  the  Higher  Criticism  is  therefore  of  extreme 
importance,  in  that  it  leads  to  the  differentiation  of 
views  in  the  critical  schools  as  to  the  nature  of 
prophecy  in  general,  the  possibility  of  predictive 
prophecy — and  the  nature  of  it,  if  its  possibility  be 
conceded.  Upon  these  grounds  already  named  as 
those  for  the  analysis,  the  defense  of  the  unity  of 
the  book  has  also  been  argued,  giving  the  facts,  of 
course,  a  different  interpretation.! 

3.    THE   QUESTION   OF   DANIEL. 

The   book    of  Jeremiah    has    furnished     critics 
with   difficulties  growing  out  of  the  difference   of 
Jeremiah  and    text  between   the    Hebrew    and    the 
Ezekiei.  Septuagint  version.     With  the  excep- 

tion of  the  last  three  chapters  of  the  book,  how- 
ever, the  authorship  of  Jeremiah  has  not  been 
denied  to  any  part  of  it.  The  book  of  Ezekiei 
has  enjoyed  the  distinction  of  being  almost  un- 
impugned,  either  as  to  genuineness  or  integrity. 
On  the  other  hand  the  book  of  Daniel  has  been,  even 
from  the  earliest  days,  a  subject  of 

3.  Daniel. 

suspicion  and    attack.     The  first  to 
deny   its  genuineness  and  credibility,    as  already 

*Cf.  Driver,  Introduction,  pp.  223-231. 

f  See  Forbes,  The  Servant  of  the  Lord,  1890,  and  literature  of 
the  subject  in  Delitzsch  on  Isaiah,  Biblischer  Commentar  iiber 
den  Propheten  Jesaja,  3d  ed.  1879,  p.  xxxiii  seq. ;  Driver,  Intro- 
duction, p.  194. 


MODERN    CRITICISM   OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     219 

observed,  was  the  pagan  opponent  of  Christianity, 
Porphyry.*  During  the  Middle  Ages  vague  sus- 
picions were  suggested,  but  it  was  not  till  the 
seventeenth  century  that  these  suspicions  found 
clear  expression.  Hobbes  f  questioned  whether 
Daniel  himself  had  written  down  his  prophecies 
or  some  later  writer.  Spinoza  J  held  that  the 
first  seven  chapters  were  not  the  work  of 
Daniel;  the  last  five  he  admitted  as  genuine.  Sir 
Isaac  Newton,  §  without  questioning  the  credibility 
of  the  book,  thought  that  the  first  six  chapters  were 
a  collection  of  historical  essays  attached  to  the 
genuine  prophecies  of  Daniel,  which  he  believed  were 
found  in  the  last  six.  Collins,  the  Deist,  denied 
the  credibility  of  the  book.  Michaelis  and  Eichhorn 
perpetuated  and  intensified  the  doubts  regarding 
the  integrity  of  it  which  they  had  inherited  from 
their  predecessors.  The  first  modern  critic  to 
assign  it  to  an  impostor  of  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  was  Corrodi.  ||  Bertholdt  elaborated  the 
argument  against  the  integrity  and  credibility.  ^[ 
Bleek  defended  the  integrity,  but  only  in  order  to 
deny  the  genuineness  of  the  whole  work  and  its 
historical  trustworthiness.  He  has  been  followed 
by  a  large  number  of  later  critics.**  The  grounds 

*P.  182.  \Leviathan,  ch.  xxxiii. 

\  Tractatus  Theologico-politicus ,  x.  130. 

§  Observations  on  the  Prophecies  of  Holy  Writ,  pub.  1754,  but 
written  1690. 

\  Geschichte  des  Chiliasmus,  1781-83 ;  Beleuchtung  der  Ge- 
schichte  des  Kanons,  1792. 

If  Daniel,  1806-08. 

**  See  list  in  Zockler's  Commentary  in  Lange,  American  ed. 
by  Strong,  1875. 


220  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

on  which  these  views  are  held  are  more  specific  than 
those  which  form  the  basis  of  criticism  either  in 
the  Pentateuch  or  in  Isaiah.  The  historical  and 
theological  arguments  are  used  in  their  •  more 
general  forms,  the  place  of  the  book  in  the  canon 
serves  as  a  special  reason  for  placing  its  com- 
position late,  and  the  use  of  Greek  words  is  given 
as  a  ground  for  the  same  conclusion.  In  defense 
of  the  integrity  of  the  book  appeared  Liiderwald* 
and  Staudlin.  f  In  defense  of  its  genuineness  in 
general  Hengstenberg,  J  Havernick,§  Auberlen,  || 
W.  S.  Volck,!  Zundel,**  Kranichfeld,tf  Z6ckler,JJ 
and  in  England  S.  P.  Tregelles,§§  Pusey,||||  J.  M. 
Fuller, l~f  R.  Payne  Smith,***  Caspari,ftt  and  F. 
Lenormant.  |JJ 

*  Die  Seeks  ersten  Kapitel  Daniels,  1787. 

f  Priifung  einiger  Meinungen  iiber  den  Ur sprung  des 
Buches  Daniel,  1791. 

\  Die  Authentie  des  Daniel,  1831. 

§  Commentar  iiber  das  Buck  Daniel,  1832. 

||  Der  Prophet  Daniel,  1854  ;  2d  ed.  1857. 

*^Vindici(z  Danielis,  1 866. 

**  Kritische  Untersuchungen  iiber  die  Abfassungszeit  des 
Buches  Daniel,  1861. 

\\Der  Prophet  Daniel,  1868. 

JJIn  Lange's  Bibehuerk,  1869. 

^Defense  of  Authenticity,  1852. 

II  Daniel  the  Prophet,  1864  ;    3d  ed.  1869. 

^[T  Essay  on  the  Authenticity  of  Daniel ',  1864. 

***  Exposition  of  the  Historical  Portions  of  the  Writings  of 
Daniel,  1886. 

fff  Zur  Einfiirung  in  d.  Buch  Daniel,  1869. 

\\\  Les  Sciences  Occultesen  Asie,  1874  ;  in  addition  to  the  above, 
some  of  the  more  recent  works  on  this  question  are  :  Fabre 
d'Envieu,  Le  Livre  du  Prophhe  Daniel,  1888  ;  Hebbelyuck,  De 
Auctoritate  Libri  Danielis,  1887;  Meinhold,  Die  Geschichtlieben 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.      221 
4.    QUESTIONS    IN    THE    MINOR    PROPHETS. 

Passing  over  as  of  subordinate  importance  the  dis- 
cussions relative  to  the  first  four  of  the  Minor  Proph- 
ets as  given  in  the  canon — Hosea, 
Amos,  Joel,  and  Obadiah — we  come  to  Prophets: 
the  Book  of  Jonah.  Here  we  have 
illustrated  the  application  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
in  the  investigation  of  another  of  its  questions,  that 
of  literary  form.  The  problem  in  Jonah  is,  whether 
the  contents  of  the  book  are  myth,  legend,  history, 
or  allegory.  The  question  of  authorship,  or  at  least 
date  of  composition,  is  naturally  involved  in  this; 
and,  in  a  more  intimate  way,  even  the  historical  and 
moral  value  of  the  book.  But  the  first  thing  to 
settle  is  the  form.  As  to  the  form,  as  early  as  the 
first  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  view 
was  propounded  that  the  work  contains  a  historical 
allegory.*  This  cut  the  book  loose  from  any 
necessary  authorship  of  the  prophet  Jonah  named 
in  2  Kings  xiv:  25.  The  active  discussion  of  the 
question,  however,  dates  from  the  last  quarter  of 
the  eighteenth  century.  Since  then  the  views  that 
have  been  put  forth  are  (i)  that  it  is  a  pure  myth, 
(2)  mixture  of  legend  and  history,  (3)  a  didactic 
poem,  (4)  a  symbolical  prophecy,  and  (5)  a  pure 
legend.  The  literal  and  substantial  historicity  of 
the  book  has  also  found  able  defenders,  f 

Hagiographen,  in  Strack  and  Zockler's  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar, 
1889;  also  Erklarzmg  des  Buches  Daniel;  Kamphausen,  Das 
Buck  Daniel  in  die  neuere  Geschichtforschung,  1893  ;  and  Farrar, 
The  Book  of  Daniel,  in  the  "  Expositor's  "  Bible  series,  1895. 

*  Herman  von  der  Hardt,  ^.nigmata  Prisci  Or  bis,  1723. 

f  Cf .  the  literature  of  the  subject  in  Lange's  Commentary  on  the 


222  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Of  the  remaining  seven  Minor  Prophets  Zechariah 

is  the  only  one   concerning  the   extent  of  whose 

literary  work  there  has  been  any  dis- 

Zechariah.  .  ,     . 

cussion    of    importance.       The     em- 
phatic phase  of  the  question  has  been  in  this  case  the 
integrity  of  the  book.     The  second  part,  consisting 
of  chapters   ix.-xiv.,  was  denied   to  Zechariah  by 
several  English  scholars,  toward  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  century,*  on  the  ground  that  a  passage 
from  it,  xi:  12,   13,  was  ascribed   to   Jeremiah   in 
Matthew  xxvii:  9.     Beginning  with  this  harmonistic 
ground  of  doubt  as  to  its  unity,  critics  soon  found 
other  internal  marks  for  ascribing  this  portion  of 
the  book  to  the  period  preceding  the  exile.     The 
criticism  thus  started,  in  the  interests  of  harmoniz- 
ing the  book  with  the  apparent  representations  of 
the   New  Testament,  was   thus  put  on  a  different 
foundation.     Moreover    this   second    part    of    the 
book  f   was   further  analyzed   by    Newcome,    who 
alleged  that  chapters  ix.-xi.  are  the  work  of  a  very 
early   prophet — one    of    the    earliest    known — and 
chapters  xii.-xiv.  by  a  later  one.  J     Of  those  who 
believe  the  whole  of  the  second  part  of  the  book 
to  be  the  work  of  one  hand,  some  assign  it  a  pre- 
exilic  date  and  some  a  post-exilic.     On  the  other 
hand  many  scholars  have  defended  the  unity  of  the 
book  and  especially  the   post-exilic  origin  of  the 

Minor  Prophets,  American  ed.  by  Elliott,  ;  M.  M.  Kalisch, 
Bible  Stories,  Part  II.,  1878.  C.  H.  II.  Wright,  Introduction, 
p.  212,  also  summarizes  the  principal  works  of  value. 

*  Mede,  Works,  1677  ;  followed  by  Kidder,  Whiston,  and  others. 

f  Chaps,  ix.-xiv. 

\  So  also  Bertholdt  and  Hitzig  in  the  2d  ed.  of  his  Zwolf 
Kleinen  Propheten, 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.     223 

second  part.  Among  these  are  Koster,*  DeWette,f 
Umbreit,  Havernick,  Hengstenberg,  Ebrard,  Klie- 
foth,  Keil,  Delitzsch,  Lange,  Pusey,  and  Chambers.  J 
The  reasons  pro  and  con  in  the  debate  are  suc- 
cinctly, but  fairly,  given  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible  (sub  voce  Zechariah)  and  in  the  Cambridge  Bible 
for  Students  by  Ven.  T.  T.  Perowne. 

5.    QUESTIONS   IN    THE   HISTORICAL   BOOKS. 

Almost  all  of  the  problems  in  the  historical  books 
of  the  Bible  are  of  very  recent  appearance  and 
involved  in  the  Pentateuchal  contro-  5t  Historical 
versy.  Joshua  has  been  made  a  part  bo°ks:  Judees- 
of  the  subject  of  controversy  under  the  larger  name 
of  the  Hexateuch.  The  Book  of  Judges  is  gener- 
ally assigned  to  the  earlier  part  of  the  period  of  the 
monarchy,  but  there  seems  to  be  a  tendency  to  see 
in  it  the  revising  hand  of  a  Deuteronomic  redactor.  § 
Very  little  of  peculiar  interest  attaches  to  the 
criticism  of  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  The 
books  of  Chronicles,  however,  have,  Kings, 
since  Wellhausen's  attack  on  their  his-  chronicles, 
torical  value,  |  taken  a  place  among  the  disputed 
subjects  in  the  Old  Testament,  ^f  The  importance 
of  the  question  here  also  grows  out  of  its  connection 

*  Meletemata  Critica,  1818. 

f  In  the  4th  and  subsequent  editions  of  his  Einleitung. 

\  In  the  American  ed.  of  Lange's  Commentary.  For  full  bibli- 
ography see  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  Zechariah  and  his  Prophecies,  1879, 
pp.  xxv  and  xli-xlviii. 

§Cf.  Driver,  Introduction,  pp.  154-158. 

|  History  of  Israel,  pp.  172. 

T[  Cf.  Driver,  Introduction,  pp.  484-507. 


224  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

with   the   question   of  the  Pentateuch.     Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  do  not  furnish  much  ground  for  discus- 
Ruth  and       sion.       The    booklets    of    Ruth    and 
Esther.  Esther  present  the  question  of  literary 

form  as  the  most  important  one  for  criticism  to 
answer.  Are  they  veritable  histories,  accounts  of 
facts  which  actually  took  place,  or  works  of  fiction  ? 
Involved  with  this  question  is,  of  course,  the  more 
practical  question  of  the  credibility  and  value  of 
these  productions.  But,  upon  the  whole,  the  discus- 
sion of  these  questions  has  been  given  a  compara- 
tively subordinate  place  in  criticism. 

6.    QUESTIONS   IN    THE    POETICAL    BOOKS. 

The  principal  question  in  Job  is  whether  the  whole 
book  belongs  to  one  author.  Doubts  have  been 
Poetical  entertained  regarding  the  authenticity 
books:  job.  of  ^  the  pj-oiogue  and  epilogue,  (2) 
the  passage,  xxvii:  7-xxviii:  28,  and  (3)  the  episode  of 
Elihu,  xxxii.-xxxvii.  The  second  of  these  passages 
is  no  longer  questioned  after  the  investigations  of 
Giesebrecht*  The  first  group  named,  including  the 
prologue  and  epilogue,  has  also  been  abandoned  as 
a  ground  of  debate.  The  Elihu  episode  offers  a 
more  fertile  soil  for  critical  results.  Accordingly, 
many  conservative  scholars  are  inclined  to  concede 
the  possibility  of  its  having  been  added  to  the  book 
by  a  later  hand.f  The  authorship,  date,  place  of 

*  Der  Wendepunkt  des  Buches  Hiob.,  Kap.  xxvii.,  xxviii.,  1879. 

|So  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament, 
1890,  p.  151.  Lias,  Biblical  Criticism,  1893,  p.  67.  See  for  a 
full,  but  succinct,  summary  of  the  discussion  A.  B.  Davidson, 
Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools,  1889. 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     225 

origin  and  historicity  of  the  book  have  also  been 
discussed,  but  with  no  clear  gain,  as  yet,  to  the  sum 
of  our  knowledge  of  the  book. 

The  Psalms  have  always  been  regarded  as  a  col- 
lection of  religious  lyrics  meant  to  be  used  in  the 
temple  service.  They  claim  various 

Psalms. 

authors  and  historical  settings.  The 
critical  question  furnished  by  the  book  is,  there- 
fore, a  complicated  one,  and  could  be  presented  fully 
only  in  an  extended  review  of  the  discussions  re- 
garding each  Psalm.  But  there  has  arisen  recently 
a  question  which  may  conveniently  be  called  the 
problem  of  the  Psalms.  It  is  as  to  whether  the  col- 
lection as  a  whole  was  composed  before  or  after  the 
exile.  Inasmuch  as  many  of  the  ostensibly  earliest 
Psalms  bear  testimony  to  the  existence  of  the 
Pentateuch  at  the  time  of  their  origin,  a  theory  of 
their  origin  consistent  with  the  Grafian  hypothesis 
of  the  origin  and  structure  of  the  Pentateuch  would 
necessitate  their  being  put  after  the  exile.  This  has 
accordingly  been  done  by  Cheyne.*  The  contro- 
versy here  may  be  said  to  have  hardly  begun  as  yet. 
The  book  of  Proverbs  furnishes  no  cardinal  ques- 
tion for  criticism.  It  is  evidently  a  collection  of 
different  utterances  by  a  number  of 
authors.  Solomon  is  alleged  to  be 
one  of  these.  There  is  no  disposition  to  deny  this. 
The  question  as  to  the  other  authors  and  their 
dates,  and  as  to  redaction  of  the  collection,  may  be 
relegated  into  the  class  of  secondary  problems  of 
criticism. 

*  The  Origin  and  Religious  Content  of  the  Psalter •,  1891. 
Bampton  Lectures. 


226  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

The  Song  of  Songs  has  been  made  the  subject  of 

a  large  discussion  as  to  the  existence  among  the 

Hebrews  of  the  drama  as  a  species  of 

Canticle. 

literature.  The  problem  of  the  book 
is,  therefore,  purely  literary.  The  production  is 
not  alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  tra- 
ditional interpretation  of  it,  as  an  allegory  of  the 
relation  of  Christ  and  the  Church,  is  no  older  than 
Origen.  The  book  is  not  likely  to  be  involved  in 
any  but  critical  and  hermeneutical  discussions. 

The  book  of  Ecclesiastes  (Qoheleth)  is  in  the 
form  of  autobiographical  sketches  by  Solomon.  But 

Ecclesiastes  scholars  of  the  most  divergent  tend- 
(Qoheieth).  encies  are  agreed  that  this  is  a 
literary  device.*  The  question  then  resolves  itself 
as  to  when  and  by  what  sort  of  a  man  the  book  was 
written,  f 

This  sketch  of  the  history  of  Old  Testament  criti- 
cism would  not  be  complete  without  a  word  as  to 

Latest  French  a  most  radical  theory  of  the  origin 
criticism.  Of  the  old  Testament,  recently  pro- 

pounded by  the  French  scholars  Havet  J  and 
Vernes.  §  This  theory  consists  in  the  assignment 
of  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  collection  to  the 

*  So  Rosenmtiller,  DeWette,  Ewald,  Hitzig,  Knobel,  Gins- 
burg,  Hengstenberg,  Delitzsch,  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  and  Driver. 

f  For  a  fuller  account  of  the  literature  of  Ecclesiastes  see  Gins- 
burg,  Koheleth,  commonly  called  Ecclesiastes ;  "with  Hist,  and 
Crit.  Comment,  1861;  Lange,  Commentary,  American  ed.  Tayler 
Lewis,  1872  ;  and  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  Ecclesiastes  in  Relation  to 
Modern  Criticism  and  Pessimism,  1883. 

\  E.tudes  cFHistoire  Religieuse.  La  Modernitt  des  Prophhes, 
1891. 

§  Essais  Bibliques,  1891. 


MODERN    CRITICISM    OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.     227 

period  between  the  fourth  and  second  centuries  B.  c. 
In  order  to  reach  this  conclusion  the  authors  are  com- 
pelled to  resort  to  some  extraordinary,  not  to  say 
grotesque,  feats  of  exegesis.  The  Assyria  of  Isaiah, 
for  instance,  has  to  be  reduced  to  Syria  under  the 
Seleucid  dynasty.  Sennacherib  and  Nebuchadnez- 
zar have  to  be  taken  as  names  concealing  oppressors 
of  the  Jewish  nation  during  the  Maccabean  age.  The 
Jehoiakim  of  Jeremiah  is  changed  into  the  Menelaus 
of  i  Maccabees  and  Zedekiah  into  Alkimus.*  It  will 
be  unnecessary  to  dwell  longer  on  this  view,  which 
has  not  been  received  with  much  enthusiasm  in  any 
quarter. 

*  I  Mac.  ix.  23  seq. 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM    IN    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT, 

THE  interest  started,  at  the  beginning  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  in  the  purity  of  the  New  Testament 
"  The  N.  T.     text>  ^7  tne  printing  of  the  same   in 
Text.  Greek,  long  absorbed  the  attention  and 

occupied  the  energies  of  students  in  this  field. 
Even  Richard  Simon,  the  father  of  modern  isagog- 
ics,  without  strictly  limiting  himself  to  the  question 
of  the  text,  devoted  the  greatest  part  of  his  work  on 
the  New  Testament  *  to  topics  which  have  since 
been  adopted  in  the  Lower  Criticism.  Simon's 
tendency  was  toward  minimizing  the  divine  ele- 
ment in  Scripture.  Other  Roman  Catholic  writers, 
like  Ellies  Du  Pin  f  and  Augustin  Calmet  J  investi- 
gated independently  of  Simon. 

Simon  found  a  vigorous  opponent,  among  Prot- 
estants, in  J.  H.    Mai.  §     Other  Protestant  writers 
were  satisfied  to  follow  in  the  beaten 

Opposed. 

paths.     An  exception  must  be  made 

*Histoire  Critique  du  Texte  du  Nouveau  Testament,  Rotterdam, 
1689  ;  later,  Nouvelles  Observations  sur  le  Texte,  et  les  Versions  du 
N.  T.,  1795. 

\  Dissertation  Prttiminaire  ou  Prolegomenes  sur  la  Bible,  2 
vols.,  1699. 

|  Dissertations  qui  Peuvent  Servir  de  Prolegomenes  de  VEcri- 
ture  Sainte,  1715,  and  enlarged,  1720. 

§  Examen  Histories  Critica  Novi  Testamenti  a  R.  Simone 
vulgatez,  1694. 

228 


IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  220 

to  this  general  statement,  however,  of  Joh.  David 
Michaelis.*  Michaelis'  interest  in  the  bare  histor- 
ical aspects  of  questions  of  Introduction  increased 
as  he  deepened  into  his  studies.  His  belief  in 
inspiration  was  not  shaken,  but  he  gave  a  subordi- 
nate place  to  this  belief,  and  denied  all  real  validity 
to  the  internal  and  subjective  appeal  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  an  argument  for  their  divine  authority. 
This  doctrine  was  commonly  taught  at  the  time 
among  Protestants  under  the  name  of  "  The  witness 
of  the  Holy  Spirit" — Testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti. 
It  was  after  the  rise  of  Deism,  and  in  consequence 
of  the  denial  of  miracles,  that  the  simona 
origin  and  credibility  of  the  writings  p»°neer- 
of  the  New  Testament  were  investigated  critically. 
The  Higher  Criticism  in  the  New  Testament  has 
accordingly  followed  the  course  of  the  history  of 
the  philosophy  of  religion,  and  gone  through  four 
phases — the  deistic,  the  mystic-rationalistic,  the 
Hegelian,  and  the  scientific  evolutionistic. 

I.  The  deistic  phase  of  New  Testament  criti- 
cism. Under  the  influence  of  the  Aufkldrung  in 
Germany,  Joh.  Salomo  Semler  f  laid 

.  Semler. 

aside  all  doctrines  of  inspiration  ex- 
cept such  as  allowed  the  critic  to  find  errors  and 
weaknesses   in    the  Scriptures.     He  held  that  the 
Bible   was    not,  but   contained,  the   Word  of  God, 
and  that  all  questions  of  the  authorship  and  credi- 

*  Einleitung  in  die  gottlichen  Schriften  des  Neuen  Bundes, 
1750  ;  4th  ed.  1788. 

\Abhandlung  von  freier  Untersuchung  des  Kanons,  1771-75. 
Semler  was  a  voluminous  writer,  leaving  behind  him  no  less  than 
171  writings  ;  Kurtz,  Church  Hist.,  iii.  p.  147. 


230  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

bility  of  its  literary  and  historical  contents  must  be 
investigated  without  reference  to  the  divine  Word 
in  it.  These  principles  were  worked  out  on  the 
one  side  into  a  rationalistic  system  of  hermeneu- 
tics,  and  on  the  other  into  a  rationalistic  system  of 
isagogics.  Semler  was  closely  followed  by  Alex- 
ander Haenlein  *  and  by  J.  Ern.  Ch.  Schmidt,  f 
Both  of  these  writers,  though  conservative  in  the 
semier-s  influ-  main>  betray  the  influence  of  Semler 
ence-  upon  them;  and  although  they  do  not 

doubt  for  themselves  the  genuineness  of  all  the 
New  Testament  writings,  they  are  entirely  at  a  loss 
as  to  how  to  deal  with  the  relations  of  the  doctrine 
of  inspiration  to  critical  investigation. 

J.    G.    Eichhorn|  breaks  away   decidedly   from 

traditional  views  in  the  New  Testament  as  he  did 

from  the  same  in  the  Old.    He  was  the 

Eichhorn.  .,._.,, 

first  to  grasp  in  this  field  the  real 
problem  involved  in  the  relations  of  the  Sypnotic 
Gospels  to  one  another  and  to  attempt  the  solution 
of  the  same  by  proposing  the  theory  of  an  original 
Gospel  (Urevangelium}.  He  thus  ushered  into  the 
domain  of  New  Testament  criticism  one  of  the 
chief  problems  with  which  all  subsequent  critics 
have  had  to  deal.  Other  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment collection  which  he  treated  critically,  with  the 
result  of  questioning  or  rejecting  them,  were  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  the  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  that  of 

*Handbuch  der  Einleitung  in  die  Schriflen  dcs  Neuen  Testa- 
ments, Erlangen,  1794-1800. 

\  Historisch-krilische  Einlcitwig  ins  Neue  Testament,  Giessen, 
1804. 

\  Einleitung  in  das  Ncue  Testament,  5  vols.,  1804-27. 


IN    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT.  231 

Jude.    Eichhorn  was  closely  followed  byBertholdt* 
and  Schott.  f 

Meanwhile,  besides  the  synoptic  problem  put  viv- 
idly by  Eichhorn,  there  emerged  the  question  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  quite  distinctly  toward  Synoptic  prob_ 
the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  cen-  lem- 
tury.  The  genuineness  of  this  Gospel  had  been 
denied  by  Edward  Evanson,  J  Horst,§  Vogel,  || 
Cludius,T  Ballenstedt,**  and  finally  by  Bretschnei- 
der.  ff  These  two  questions — the  Sypnoticand  that 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel — now  took  place  alongside 
of  the  antilegomena  of  the  ancient  period  as  the 
proper  field  for  critical  research. 

In  defense  of  the  traditional  views  now  appeared 
Kleuker,JJ  and  more  generally  the  Roman  Catholic 
scholar,  T.  Leonard  Hug.  88  Hug  did 

J.  L.  Hug. 

not  discard  or  condemn  the  principles 

and  rules  of  his  opponents,  but  rather  made  use  of 

them  himself  with  great  acuteness,   but  from  the 

*  Historisch-kritische  Einleitung,  in  samtliche  kanonische  und 
apocryphische  Schriften  des  Alien  und  Neuen  Testamentes,  1812- 
1819. 

f  Isagoge  Historico-critica  in  Libras  Novi  Foideris  Sacros,  1830. 

\The  Dissonance  of  the  Evangelists,  1792. 

§  In  Henke's  Museum  fur  Religionswissenschaft,  1803,  pt.  i. 
47  seq. 

I  Der  Evangelist  Johannes  und  seine  Ausleger,  1801-04. 

^f  Uranischten  des  Christenthums,  1808. 

**  Philo  und  Johannes,  1812. 

ft  Probabilia  de  evangelii  ft  epistolarum  Joannis  apostoli  indole 
et  origine,  1820. 

\\  Untersuchungen  der  Grilnde  fur  die  Echtheit  und  Glaub- 
•wiirdigkeit  der  Schriftlichen  Urkunden  des  Christenthums ,  1788. 

§§  Einleitung  indie  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments,  Tubingen, 
1808, 


232  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

point  of  view  of  a  believer  in  the  claims  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  of  the  Church  as 
to  their  origin  and  value.  The  genuine  value  of 
his  work  has  been  universally  acknowledged,  even 
by  those  who  have  differed  from  him.  He  was  fol- 
lowed by  A.  B.  Feilmoser,*  and  later  by  a  large 
number  of  other  Roman  Catholic  writers,  f 

II.  The  mystic-rationalistic  tendency.     This  has 

also  been  called  the  mediating  tendency,  standing 

as  it  does  between  the  rationalism  of 

Schleiermacher.  ,_,.,, 

Semler  and  Eichhorn  and  the  tradi- 
tional views.  It  is  the  result  of  a  partial  reaction 
against  rationalism.  It  is  characterized  by  the 
effort  to  plant  the  religious  force  and  the  historic 
content  of  the  Scriptures  on  separate  foundations. 
It  is  the  distinctive  tendency  of  the  school  of  Schlei- 
ermacher. Schleiermacher  himself  was  primarily  a 
theologian,  and  although  he  modestly  disclaimed  the 
title  of  founder  of  a  school  of  theology,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  the  number  and  consistency  of  his  fol- 
lowers render  it  only  proper  to  look  upon  him  as 
such.  He  was,  however,  also  a  critical  scholar  and 
investigator  in  the  field  of  the  New  Testament.  In 
both  spheres  his  standpoint  seemed  to  be  the  com- 
bination of  contradictions.  He  dealt  with  the  his- 
torical sources  of  Christianity  with  almost  reckless 
disregard  of  consequences;  but  he  continued  using 
them  as  authoritative  regarding  Christ  and  his 
teaching.  His  teachings  on  New  Testament  criti- 
cism were  oral.  His  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 


*  Einleitung  in  die  Bilcher  des  neuen  Bundes,  Innsbruck,  1810. 
f  Scholz,  Reithmayr,  Maier,  Haneberg,  Guntner,  Danko. 


IN    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT.  233 

merit  was  published  only  after  his  death.*  The 
results  of  his  tendency  were  anticipated  by  his 
pupils. 

The  ablest  exponent  of  this  school,  if  it  may  be 
called  a  school,  was  W.  L.  M.  DeWette.  f  Begin- 
ning with  a  determination  to  avoid 
bias  of  all  sorts,  DeWette  carries  on  DeWette- 
his  critical  work  with  a  sharp  discrimination  and 
declines  to  go  further  than  the  critical  evidence 
will  warrant.  This  appears  quite  disappointing. 
The  results  are  often  negative;  i.  e.,  they  are  not 
clearly  announced.  The  critic  has  had  to  hold 
judgment  in  suspense.  Thus,  on  the  genuineness  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  in  his  earlier  editions  he  is  doubt- 
ful; in  the  later  editions  he  more  clearly  inclines  to 
accept  the  theory  of  genuineness.  So  on  2  Thes- 
salonians  a  similar  wavering  and  gravitation  toward 
the  old  view  appears  in  his  works.  The  work  of 
K.  Aug.  CrednerJ  belongs  to  the  same  class  as 
DeWette's.  He  emphasized  the  his- 
torical idea  in  Introduction  and  strove 
to  reach  a  historical  point  of  view.  His  results 
were  to  be  a  consecutive  history  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings.  Following  Credner  in  the  main,  but 
differing  in  minor  details,  was  Neudecker.  § 

The  theologians  of  the  school  of  Schleiermacher 
did  not  continue  as  a  compact  body.  From  the 

*  Edited  by  Wolde  in  Siimtliche  Werke,  i.  8,  1848. 

f  Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  in  die  Kanon- 
ischen  Bilcher  des  neuen  Testamenles,  1826  ;  5th  ed.  1848  ;  6th,  by 
Luneman  and  Messner,  1860. 

%  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  1836. 

§  Historisch-krilische  Einleitung  in  das  neue  Testament^  1840. 


234  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

nature  of  the  philosophical  basis  of  the  school  much 
room  was  left  for  the  subjective  and  personal  equa- 
tion in  the  work  of  each  adherent  of 

Schleier- 

macher's  foi-    the    fundamental    ideas.      Thus,    al- 

lowers. 

though  all  aimed  to  reach  a  platform 
whence  criticism  might  be  freely  exercised,  regard- 
less of  the  bearings  it  might  have  on  religious  views, 
yet,  as  they  compared  results,  they  found  that  they 
were  compelled  to  antagonize  each  other  in  many 
particulars.  In  general,  however,  the  school  falls 
naturally  into  two  sections;  /'.  e.,  the  evangelical 
wing  and  the  naturalistic  wing.  The  scholars 
already  named  belong  to  the  latter.  Of  the  former 
Guericke,*  Hermann  Olshausen,f  and  Neander  J 
are  the  leading  representatives.  Meander's  labors 
deserve  special  mention  as  of  the  greatest  import- 
ance; he  defends  the  authenticity  of  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  with  the  exception  of  2  Peter 
and  i  Timothy. 

III.  The  Tubingen  criticism.  (Called  also  the 
"Tendency  Criticism.")  The  philosophical  principle 

Tubingen  on  which  the  Tubingen  school  rested 
was  the  Hegelian  theory  of  develop- 
ment. History  moves  in  the  threefold  process  of 
thesis,  antithesis,  and  synthesis.  Action  is  followed 

*  Beitrage  zur  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  ins  Neue  Testa- 
ment, 1828-31  ;  and  Hist.-krit.  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  1843  ; 
3d  ed.  as  N.  T.-liche  Isagogik,  1868. 

\Schrift  iiber  die  Echtheit  der  vier  Evangelien,  1823;  and 
special  introductions  in  his  Biblical  Commentary,  Eng.  trans. 
1847-49. 

\  Pflanzting  und Leitung  der  christlichen  Kirche,  1832  ;  5th  ed. 
1862  ;  Eng.  trans,  by  Ryland,  1842  ;  and  revised  by  Robinson, 
1865. 


IN    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT.  235 

by  reaction,  and  conflict  thus  arises.  All  conflict, 
however,  must  ultimately  issue  in  compromise. 
This  was  precisely  the  course  of  events  in  the 
development  of  Christianity.  The  founder  of  the 
Tubingen  school  of  criticism,  Ferdinand  Christian 
Baur,*  pointed  out  the  conflicting  principles  in  this 
case.  He  found  the  key  to  the  situation 

_.  .  „       .       ,  .  .  Baur. 

m  Romans  xi:  i,  Corinthians  i:  12,  and 
Galatians  ii.  Jesus  Christ  and  his  teaching  were 
interpreted  differently  by  the  Twelve  and  by  Paul. 
He  was  the  teacher  of  a  moral  religious  truth  of  uni- 
versal application,  and  at  the  same  time  lived  within 
the  Jewish  nation  and  conformed  to  the  law.  The 
latter  of  these  aspects  fixed  itself  on 

m  Standpoint. 

the  minds  of  the  Twelve,  and  they 
taught  the  system  of  Jesus  as  a  mere  continuation 
of  the  Judaism  under  which  they  had  been  trained. 
Paul  saw  the  other  side  of  Christ's  work.  He 
understood  and  developed  Christianity  as  the  way 
of  salvation  for  all  men  apart  from  the  law.  This 
difference  of  view  occasioned  the  conflict.  Paul 
was  attacked  as  an  unauthorized  '  innovator  in 
Christianity.  He  wrote  in  his  own  defense  the 
Epistles  to  the  Romans,  to  the  Corinthians,  and  to 
the  Galatians.  On  the  other  side  as  an  attack  on  his 

*  Die  Christuspartei  in  der  Corinthischcn  Gemeinde  in  the 
Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie,  1831,  4tes  Heft ;  Die  Sogenannten 
Pastor albriefe  des  Paulus,  1835  ;  Paulus  der  Apostel  Jesu 
Christi,  1845  ;  2d  ed.  by  Zeller,  1865  ;  Ueber  Zweck  und  Veran- 
lassung  des  Bomer  briefs,  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie,  1836,  3tes 
Heft;  Die  christliche  Kirche  der  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte,  1853. 
Baur  gives  his  own  account  of  the  genesis  and  history  of  the 
Tubingen  idea  in  his  Die  christliche  Kirche  des  iqtts  Jahrhun- 
dertes,  1862  ;  2d  ed.  1877. 


236  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

teaching  appeared  the  Apocalypse.  All  the  other 
New  Testament  writings,  inasmuch  as  they  do  not 
show  clear  evidences  of  this  conflict,  must  have 
been  produced  later  by  members  of  the  moderate 
or  mediating  party,  or  revised  and  softened  by  them 
and  thus  deprived  of  their  partizan  rancor.  The 
conciliatory  writings  are  later  than  the  partizan, 
because  their  tendency  is  to  reconcile  the  conflict- 
ing parties.  They  represent  the  state  of  feeling 
among  Christians  during  the  period  when  the 
polemic  spirit  began  to  abate,  and  the  Judaists  and 
Paulinists  drew  near  one  another;  blending  finally 
at  the  end  of  the  second  century  in  the  one  Catholic 
Church. 

According    to  Baur  only  the  above  named   five 
books  were  genuine  productions  of   the  apostolic 
Results  of      aSe-     Of  the  others  Matthew  was  an 
Baur.  originally   Judaistic  work,  revised   in 

the  interests  of  Paulinism;  Mark  was  a  conciliatory 
writing  from  the  beginning;  Luke  was  the  obverse 
of  Matthew — originally  a  Pauline  work,  it  had  been 
amended  in  the  interests  of  Judaistic  thought. 
The  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  of  John 
are  the  last  of  all  the  New  Testament  writings,  and 
belong  to  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century. 
The  Acts  are  untrustworthy,  and  written  purely  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  that  Peter  and  Paul  taught 
the  same  things.  The  lesser  epistles  of  Paul 
present  Paulinism  accommodating  itself  to  Judais- 
tic Christianity.  The  Catholic  Epistles,  including 
James,  show  Judaistic  Christianity  assimilated  to 
Paulinism. 

Baur  rendered   a   real    and   valuable  service   to 


IN    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT.  237 

sound  criticism  by  leading  it  into  the  use  of  the 
historic  method.  He  makes  an  epoch  in  New  Tes- 
tament criticism  as  the  first  to  intro-  service  ren- 
duce  this  method  here.  Credner  had  dered  by  Baur- 
made  the  effort  to  write  a  history  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings,  but  Baur  was  the  first  to  attempt  a 
reconstruction  of  the  situation  of  the  times  in 
which  these  writings  originated.  But  he  planted 
the  seeds  of  decay  in  his  own  system  by  infusing 
into  it  a  speculative  and  unreal  philosophy  of 
history. 

The  fascination  of  Baur's  method  drew  to  his  side 
and  enlisted  in  the  support  of  his  views  a  group 
of  brilliant  men.     Among  these  were, 
Ed.  Zeller,*   Alb.  Schwegler,t  C.    R.    ' 
Kostlin.  J     These  followed  him  rather  closely. 

Other  followers  felt  constrained  to  make  conces- 
sions of  more  or  less  importance  to  the  opposition. 
Volkmar§  modified  Baur's  view  of  the  origin  and 
relations  of  the  Gospels  to  one  another.  Ad.  Hil- 
genfeld  ||  has  defended  the  genuineness  of  Philip- 

*  As  editor  of  the  Theologischejahrbucher,  beginning  with  1842, 
and  in  Die  Apostelgeschichte  nach  ihrem  Inhalt  und  Ursfrung, 
1856. 

f  Das  Nachaposlolische  Zeitalter,  1846. 

\In  the  Theol.Jiihrbucher  for  1851,  corroborating  Baur's  results 
by  a  theory  of  pseudepigraphic  literature  during  the  apostolic 
age. 

%Der  Ur sprung  unserer  Evangelien,  1 866  ;  Die  synopsis  der 
Evangelien,  1869. 

I  Editor  of  Zeitschrift  fur  Wissenschaftliche  Theologie  since 
1858,  and  in  Der  Kanon  und  die  Kritik  des  neuen  Testaments 
1836 ;  Historisch-kritische  Einleitung  in  das  neue  Testament, 
1875. 


238  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

plans,  Thessalonians,  and  Philemon;  thus  admitting 
seven  instead  of  four  genuine  Pauline  epistles  in  the 
canon.  He  has  also  placed  much  earlier  than  Baur 
the  date  of  the  Gospels.  Holsten  *  asserts  that 
conflict  between  the  Petrine  and  Pauline  sides 
begins  after  the  meeting  of  Paul  and  Peter  at 
Antioch.f 

Outside  of  Germany  the  Tubingen  school  found 
adherents  in  Holland  in  the  person  of  Scholten,J 
in  England,  Samuel  Davidson,  §  in  France, 
Reville  ||  and  Renan,^[  and  in  America  Orello 
Cone.** 

Passing  into  a  third  phase  the  Tubingen  theory 

and  method  lose  their  distinctiveness  and  become  a 

form  of  mere  rationalistic    criticism, 

Latest  phase          ...  .  .... 

of  Tiibingen        adapting   itself    to    increasing    light. 

criticism.  .       . 

This   is   the   case    in    the    works    of 
Otto     Pfleiderer,ff    Adolf   Hausrath,JJ    Immer,§§ 

*  Das  Evangelium  des  Paulus  dargestellt,  1880. 

f  Galatians  ii. 

\  Historical  and  Critical  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament, 
1853  ;  2d  ed.  1856. 

%  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  1 868  ;  2d  ed.  1882.  Dr. 
Davidson  had  published  an  earlier  work  on  the  same  subject,  de- 
fending the  traditional  views,  which  was  superseded  by  this. 

||  Articles  in  the  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes. 

1  Vie  de  J/sus,  1863  ;  Les  Apbtres,  1866  ;  St.  Paul  el  sa  Mis- 
sion,  1869  ;  Les  Evangiles  et  la  Se"conde  Ge"ne"ration  Chrttienne, 
1877. 

**  Gospel  Criticism  and  Historical  Christianity,  1888;  The  Gos- 
pel and  Us  Earliest  Interpretation,  1893. 

\\DerPaulinismus,  1873. 

\\Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  1868-73  ;  2d  ed.  1873-77. 

§§  Theolog ie  des  Neuen  Testaments,  1877. 


IN-  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  239 

H.     J.     Holtzmann,*     C.     Wei z sack e r,  f    and    Ju- 
licher.  J 

Baur's  criticism  led  to  two  side-developments  in- 
dependent of  the  main  stream  of  the  history  of 
criticism.  These  were  the  mythical 

..    _,  Strauss. 

theory  of  Strauss  and  the  absolute 
negation  of  Bruno  Bauer.  Baur's  idea  of  historicity 
involved  the  denial  of  the  supernatural.  This  phase 
of  his  method  was  emphasized  by  David  Frederick 
Strauss.  §  The  result  was  the  mythical  theory  of 
Gospel  history,  according  to  which  every  miraculous 
account  was  explained  as  a  myth.  This  work  was 
so  exclusively  on  &  priori  reasoning  that  Strauss  felt 
it  to  be  necessary  to  write  another  supplementing 
its  weaknesses.  I  His  importance  in  the  history  of 
pure  criticism  is  secondary. 

The   total  denial  of  the  genuineness  of  all  the 
New  Testament  writings,   and  their  credibility  as 
historical  sources,  was  made  by  Bruno 
Bauer. *j[     Bauer   ascribed   the   whole 
body  of  New   Testament  writings    to  the   second 

*  Lehrbuch  des  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung,  in  das  nette 
Testament,  1885. 

f  Untersitchungen  uber  die  Evangelische  Geschichte,  1863;  Das 
apostolische  Zeilalter  der  christlichen  Kirche,  1863  ;  Eng.  trans. 
1893.  Besides  the  above,  other  advocates  of  similar  views  are  : 
Wittichen,  Lipsius,  Overbeck,  Paul  Schmidt,  W.  Bruckner,  and 
Seuffert. 

\  Einleitung  in  das  neue  Testament,  1804. 

^Lebenjesu,  1835. 

||  Das  Leben  Jesu  fur  das  deutsche  Volk  bearbeitet,  1864;  4th 
ed.  1877  ;  Eng.  trans.  1865. 

T  Kritik  der  Evangelien,  1850-52;  Kritik  der  Apostelgeschichte, 
1850 ;  Kritik  der  Paulinichen  Briefe,  1852  ;  Christus  und 
die  Casaren,  1877. 


240  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

century.*  He  remained,  however,  the  sole  repre- 
sentative of  these  ideas  until  the  rise  of  the  most 
recent  destructive  criticism  by  Steck. 

Opposition  to  the  methods  and  results  of  the 
Tubingen  school  arose  in  two  quarters,!  /*.  e. ,  first, 

_        ....          in  the  evangelical  school  of  criticism, 

Opposition. 

which  approached  the  problems  of 
criticism  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  traditional 
theories,  with  the  evident  intention  of  defending 
these;  and  second,  in  a  group  of  scholars  some  of 
whom  proceeded  from  the  school  of  Schleiermacher, 
whose  standpoint  has  been  given  above,  and  others 
working  independently. 

The  evangelical  school  found  an  early  exponent 
in  J.  H.  A.   Ebrard,J  W.  O.    Dietlein,§  followed  by 
Evangelical      H-   W-    J-  Thiersch, ||    Lechler,f   and 
criticism.  the  school  of  Hofmann  in  Erlangen. 

Hofmann  himself  defended  the  genuineness  of  all 
the  books  of  the  canon,  including  2  Peter.** 
Hofmann's  disciples  are  Luthardt,ff  Rud.  Fr. 

*  130-170  A.  D. 

f  The  first  response  made  to  Baur  and  the  Tubingen  standpoint 
was  of  a  semi-humorous  nature  by  H.  Bottger,  entitled  Baurs 
historische  Kritik  in  ihrer  Conseqitenz,  1 840. 

t  Wissenschaftliche  Kritik  der  evangelischen  Geschichte^  1842  ; 
2d  ed.  1850. 

§  Das  Urchristeiithum ,  1845. 

|  Versuch  zur  Herstellung  des  historischen  Standpunktes  fiir 
die  Kritik  der  N.-Testamentlichen  Schriften,  1845  ;  Die  Kirche 
im  apostolichen  Ztitalter,  1852  ;  2d  ed.  1879. 

T[  Das  apostolische  und  nachapo stolische  Zeitalter,  1851. 

**  Die  Heilige  Schrift  Neuen  Testaments  zusammenhangend 
untersucht,  1862-81.  This  work  was  left  unfinished  at  the  death 
of  the  author  and  completed  by  Volck. 

\\DieJohanneische  Ur sprung  des  Vierten  Evatigeliwns,  1874. 


IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  241 

Grau,  *  Nosgen,  f  Th.  Zahn.  J  The  other  wing  of  op- 
position to  the  Tubingen  standpoint  brought  to  the 
surface  such  works  as  those  of  Friedrich  Bleek,§ 
Ewald,||  Eduard  Reuss.^f  These  scholars,  however, 
by  no  means  represent  a  return  to  the  traditional 
views  or  even  to  the  rationalistic  views  of  the  New 
Testament  which  preceded  the  advent  of  the  Tubin- 
gen school,  but  a  tendency  toward  a  nearer  approach 
to  the  standpoint  whence  critical  investigation  might 
go  on  consistently  with  the  belief  in  the  divine 
origin  and  authoritative  nature  of  the  Scriptures. 
An  independent  contribution  to  this  tendency  was 
made  by  Albrecht  Ritschl.**  The  appearance  of 
his  work  was  a  blow  dealt  at  the 

^.  ,  Ritschl. 

Tubingen  criticism.  And  it  proved 
all  the  more  serious  as  such,  as  Ritschl  had  already 
appeared  as  one  of  the  champions  of  the  school,  ff 
Ritschl  did  not  deny  the  antagonism  between 
Paulinism  and  Judaistic  Christianity,  but  claimed 
that  this  antagonism  was  preceded  by  a  common 
gospel,  out  of  which  grew  both  Paulinism  and  its 

*Entwicklungsgeschichte  des  N,-Testamentlichen  Schriftthums, 
1871. 

\  Geschichte  der  Neuteslamenllichen  Offenbaruug,  1891-93. 

\  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  N.-  Testamentlichen  Kanons, 
1881-1884  ;  Das  Nette  Testament  vor  Origenes,  1888,  1889  ;  and 
Geschichte  des  N.-Testamentlichen  Kanons,  1890-92. 

§  Beitrage  zur  Evangelienkritik,  1846  ;  Einleitung  in  das  Neue 
Testament,  edited  by  Johannes  Bleek,  1862  ;  and  by  Mangold, 
4th  ed.  1886. 

\Jahrbucher  der  Biblischen  Wissenchaft,  beginning  with  1849, 
and  Die  Biicher  des  neuen  Bundes  iiberzetzt  und  erklart^  1871-72. 

^[  Geschichte  der  Heiligen  Schriften  :  Neues  Testament,  1842, 
5th  ed.  1874  ;  Eng.  trans.  1884. 

**  Die  Enlstehung  der  altkatholischen  Kirche,  2d  ed.  1857. 

ff  In  the  first  edition  of  the  Altkatolische  Kirche,  1850. 


242  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

antagonistic    Judseo-Christianity.      Paulinism  was, 
according   to  him,  the  legitimate   outcome  of  the 

standpoint.  teaching  of  Jesus-  Against  this  the 
Judaistic  movement  rose  as  a  mild 
and  feeble  reaction,  but  was  overcome  shortly. 
Thus  the  conflict,  instead  of  playing  such  an  impor- 
tant part  in  the  formation  of  the  New  Testament 
literature,  was  only  an  episode  in  the  history  of 
early  Christianity.  Ritschl,  moreover,  insisted  on 
the  admissibility  of  the  miraculous  element  in  history. 
At  the  same  time  his  criticism  was  of  the  freest. 
Looking  upon  the  Christian  system  as  a  teaching 
which  authenticates  itself  subjectively  by  the  im- 
pression it  produces,  he  had  no  interest  in  saving 
any  mere  objective  statements,  or  opinions  regard- 
ing its  sources.  This  mode  of  treating  the  New 
Testament  writings  has  found  a  large  number  of 
adherents.  From  the  very  nature  of  its  peculiarity, 
however,  it  leads  to  differing  results.  Among  the 

scholars  who  approach  Ritschl's  stand- 
Followers.  .  ,  ,  ,   A 
point     may     be     named      Harnack,* 

Schurer,f  and  Wendt.J 

Quite  evangelical  in  their  tone  are  the  produc- 
tions of  W.  Beyschlag  §  and  of  B.  Weiss.  ||     Evan- 
w.  Beyschlag.  gelical    and    conservative    has    been 
B.  Weiss.         ajgo  predominantly  the  scholarship  of 

*  Das  Neue  Testament  urn  das  Jahr  200,  1889. 

f  "The  Fourth  Gospel,"  Contemporary  Review,  September  1891. 

\  Die  Lehre  Jesu  1890;  Eng.  trans.  1892. 

§  Lebenjesu,  1887  ;  Neu  Testamentalische  Theologie,  1891-92  ; 
Eng.  trans.  1875. 

I  Lehrbuch  der  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  1886  ;  2d  ed. 
1 889  ;  Eng.  trans.  1889.  Weiss'  other  works  are  also  of  importance 
in  the  history  of  New  Testament  criticism  :  Petrinische  Lehr- 
begriff,  1855  ;  Das  Markus  evangelium  und  seine  synoptische 
Parallelen,  1872  ;  Das  Matthaus  evangelium  und  seine  Lukas- 


IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  243 

Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  Some  of  the 
most  valuable  contributions  to  New  Testament 
criticism  have  been  made,  apart  from 

i         •  u        T       T»       T  •     L^        English  critics. 

polemic  purposes,  by  J.  B.  Light- 
foot,*  B.  F.  Westcott,f  C.  J.  Ellicott,J  Sanday,§ 
Plumtre, ||  Lumby,^[  Salmon,**  Marcus  Dods,ff 
and  McClymont.JJ  To  these  must  be  added  the 
American  scholar  Ezra  Abbott.  §§  In  the  same 
strain  has  been  also  the  work  of 

,  ,  ,      .  ,       .        ....       French  critics. 

the      French      scholars,     Cellener,  |||| 
Glaire,lf  Gilly,***  Pressens6,fft  and  Godet.JJJ 

parallelen,  1876  ;  Lehrbuch  der  Biblischen  Theologie  des  Neuen 
Testaments,  1864  ;  5th  ed.  1888. 

*  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  1865;  Philippians,  1868  ;  8th.  ed. 
1888  ;  Colossians  and  Philemon,  1875  ;  8th  ed.  1886. 

f  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels ;  1860  ;  The  History 
of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  1855  ;  6th  ed.  1889. 

\  Without  dealing  with  critical  questions  specifically,  this  author 
stands  on  conservative  ground  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Epis- 
tles of  Paul  and  expressly  defines  his  position  as  that  of  an  evan- 
gelical critic  in  his  Christus  Comprobatur,  1892. 

§  Author ship  and  Historical  Character  of  t/te  Fourth  Gospel, 
1872  ;  The  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century,  1876. 

|  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  1883. 

^[  Popular  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  1883. 

**A  Historical  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Books  of  the 
New  Testament,  1855  ;  8th  ed.  1895. 

ff  An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  1889. 

jj  The  New  Testament  and  its  Writers,  1893. 

g§  The  Attthorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  1 880. 

||  Essai  d'une  Introduction  Critique  au  Nouveau  Testament, 
1823. 

T[^f  Introduction  Historique et  Critique  aux Livres  de  I'Ancien  et 
du  Nouveau  Testament,  5  vols.  1843  i  3<i  e^-  1861—62. 

***  Precis  d  'Introduction  Generate  et  Particuliere  a  I'Ecri- 
ture  Sainte,  3  vols.  1867-68. 

\\\L'Ecole  Critique  et  Jesus-Christ,  1863. 

\\\  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  :  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
1894  ;  published  in  French  and  English  at  the  same  time. 


244  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

An   attempt    to    establish   a  new  standpoint  for 

New    Testament    criticism     on    the    platform    of 

Bruno    Bauer   was   made   by    Rudolf 

Latent    nega-  * 

stveckcriticism :  Steck.*  This  critic  put  forth  the 
view  that  none  of  Paul's  Epistles 
were  genuine.  The  four  cardinal  epistles  com- 
monly conceded  as  such  by  the  Tubingen  scholars 
were  the  works  of  a  Pauline  school  in  the  second 
quarter  of  the  second  century.  But  if  the  Pauline 
epistles  are  not  genuine  the  other  New  Testament 
writings  could  not  be.  Steck's  view  of  the  devel- 
opment of  the  New  Testament  writings  is  in  some 
respects  the  reverse  of  that  of  the  Tubingen 
school.  The  conflict  between  Paulinism  and 
Judseo-Christianity  was,  according  to  him,  sub- 
sequent to  the  development  of  the  earliest  Church 
rather  than  its  condition  and  cause.  Christianity 
begins  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  this  is  dif- 
ferentiated into  Ebionism,  and  Gnosticism  in  the 
second  century  ;  Judaeo-Christianity  is  the  half- 
way point  toward  Ebionism,  and  Paulinism  the 
same  toward  Gnosticism.  The  revival  of  Bruno 
Bauer's  total  denial  of  the  genuineness  of  the  New 
Testament  writings  has  found  other  promoters, 
especially  in  Holland.  Here  the  earlier  labors  of 
Naber  and  Pierson  have  been  followed  by  those  of 
Loman  and  Van  Manen.  f 

This  sketch  of  the  history  of  New  Testament 
criticism  would  be  incomplete  without  at  least  a 
mere  mention  of  the  rise  of  two  specific  problems 

*  Dcr  Galaterbrief  nach  seiner  Echtheit  untersucht,  1888. 
f  Van  Manen,  De  Handenlingen  der  Apostelen,  1890  ;  De  brief 
aan  de  Romeinen,  1892. 


IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  245 

that  have  developed  also  within  a  few  years.  These 
are  the  problem  of  the  Apocalypse  and  the  problem 
of  the  Acts. 

The  question  regarding  the  Apocalypse  was  raised 
by  Volter,  *  who  set  up  the  theory  that  the  Apocalypse 
is  made  up  of  documents  of  different 

•  mt  •          •  1- j        Special    ques- 

dates  fused  into  one.  This  view  did  tions :  the  Apoc- 
not  meet  with  much  favor.  In  1886 
Vischer  f  elaborated  the  view  that  the  book  of 
Revelation  is  the  Christian  recension  of  an  original 
Jewish  book.  The  Christian  redactor  seems  to 
have  added  the  first  three  chapters,  besides  inter- 
polating the  other  parts  of  the  book  quite  freely. 
The  discussion  thus  became  and  for  the  present 
remains  three-cornered  as  between  the  advocates  of 
Vischer's  view,  that  of  Volter,  and  the  adherents  of 
the  traditional  view  that  the  Revelation  is  the  writ- 
ing of  John  the  Apostle. 

The  question  regarding  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
begins  properly  with  Spitta's  Apostelgeschichte.\ 
Spitta  teaches  that  the  book  of  Acts  —  — — 

The  Acts. 

consists  of  two  sources — A  and  B — 
fused  together.  Dividing  A  into  40  sections  and  B 
into  32,  the  two  sources  are  parallel  in  no  less  than 
24  of  these  sections.  A  is  distinguished  by  natural- 
ness and  trustworthiness;  B  follows  the  popular  and 
corrupt  traditions  regarding  the  apostolic  age  and 

*  Die  Entstehung  der  Apokalypse,  1882  ;  2d  ed.  1885. 

f  Die  Offenbarung  Johannis  eine  jiidische  Apokalypse  in  Christ- 
licher  Bearbeitung  ;  mit  einem  Nachwort  von  Adolf  Harnackt 
1886.  Pt.  iii.  of  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  vol.  ii. 

\  Die  Apostelgeschichte  :  ihre  Quellen  und  deren  geschicht- 
lichen  Wertht  1891. 


246  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

strings  together  a  line  of  miracles,  some  of  which 
"  border  on  the  absurd."  To  A  belong  in  the  main 
chapters  i.-xii.  and  xv. ;  to  B,  chapters  xiii.-xxviii., 
except  xv.  The  recent  origin  of  this  view  has  not 
afforded  time  as  yet  for  its  thorough  discussion. 

As  our  survey  of  the  history  of  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism in  the  New  Testament  has  not  led  us  to  dis- 
Probiems  in  tinguish  clearly  the  problems  which 
N.  T.  criticism.  jiaye  emerge(j  jn  this  field,  it  may  con- 
stitute a  most  appropriate  close  to  the  sketch  to 
simply  enumerate  these  problems. 

1.  The  Synoptic  problem.     This  is  a  question  as  to 
the  mode  of  the  origin  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.     It 
was  occasioned  by  the  observation  of  the  resem- 
blances  and   differences    between    the   first   three 
Gospels.     It  arose   quite  early   in   the   history  of 
criticism.       The    resemblances    of    the    Synoptic 
Gospels  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  preclude  the  view 
that  they  originated  entirely  independently  of  one 
another.     As  to  what  connection  they  have  had  in 
this  matter,  the  views  held  may  be  summed  up  as 
(i)  the  hypothesis  of  a  common  oral  tradition;  (2) 
the   hypothesis  of    one  common    written    source  ; 
(3)  the  hypothesis  of  two  written  now  not  extant 
sources,   and   (4)   the   hypothesis    of    two   written 
sources,  of  which  one  is  the  Gospel  of  Mark  in  nearly 
its  present  form. 

2.  The  problem  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,     This  is 
also  one  of  the  earliest  modern    questions   in  the 
New  Testament,  and  consists  in  the  inquiry  whether 
John  the  Apostle  and  son  of  Zebedee  wrote  the 
fourth  Gospel.     The  views  held  are   (i)  That  he 
did  ;  (2)   that  the  Gospel  was  the  product  of    an 


IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  247 

Alexandrian  tendency  about  the  first  quarter  of 
the  second  century;  (3)  that  it  was  the  product  of  a 
Gnostic  tendency;  (4)  that  it  is  a  Christian  work 
proceeding  from  the  Johannine  circle,  but  not  the 
work  of  John  himself. 

3.  The   problem  of  the  Acts.     This  question,  as 
developed  within  the  most  recent  years,  has  already 
been  stated.     For  the  sake  of  removing  misunder- 
standing, however,  it  may  be  proper  to  add  that 
doubts  as  to  the  historical  value  of  the  Acts  were 
entertained   by   the   Tubingen   critics,  and    efforts 
have  been  made  to  ascertain  a  date  for  the  origin  of 
the  book  within  the  second  century  and  to  establish 
its  dependence  on  Josephus. 

4.  The  problem  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.     Criticism 
in  reality  finds  more  than  one  question  here.     The 
preceding  sketch  has  led  us  to  touch  on  these  ques- 
sions  more  fully  than  on  the  others;  it  will  only  be 
necessary  to   state   now  the    principal  views  held. 
These  are    (i)    all    the   epistles    extant   under   the 
name    of   Paul   are    genuine;    (2)    all   are    genuine 
except  the  pastoral  epistles,   (3)  none  are  genuine 
except  the  cardinal  epistles — Romans,  Corinthians, 
Galatians,  and  perhaps    Philippians  and  Thessalo- 
nians.     (4)  None  are  genuine. 

5.  The  problem  of  Hebrews.     This  is  the  oldest 
question  of  criticism.     Tradition  ascribed  the  writ- 
ing  in   the    third    century  to    Paul.     Doubts   were 
expressed  as  to  the  truthfulness  of  this  ascription. 
The  discussion  subsided   and    was   revived   at   the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  and  with  greater  acuteness 
during  the  present  century.     The  views  held  are  : 
(i)  the   Pauline  origin  of  the  epistle  (a)  directly, 


248  THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

(£)  through  the  mediation  of  an  assistant — Luke, 
Timothy,  Clement.  (2)  The  authorship  of  a  disciple 
or  associate  of  Paul — Apollos,  Barnabas,  etc. 

6.  The  Petrine  problem.     The   simplest  form  of 
the  question  is,  Did  the  Apostle  Peter  write  either 
one  of  the  epistles  now  under  his  name  in  the  canon  ? 
The   answers   are  :    (i)  He   wrote   neither;   (2)   he 
wrote  the  first,  but  not  the  second;  (3)  he  wrote 
both.     Thus   far  the   fourth  possible   answer,  /.  e., 
he  wrote  the  second,  but  not  the  first,  has  not  been 
given   by   any   one.       In    the    discussion   of   these 
answers  much  importance  attaches  to  the  depend- 
ence, real  or  imaginary,  of  the  epistles  of  Peter  on 
those  of  Paul.     In  the  case  of  the  second  epistle,  its 
relation  to  Jude  is  also  an  important  factor. 

7.  The  problem  of  James.     The  question  is  two-" 
fold  :    (i)  Who  is  the  James  of  the  epistle  ?     (2)  Did 
he  actually  write  the  epistle  ? 

8.  The  problem  of  Jude.     The  question  is  here 
also  twofold  :  (i)  Who  is  the  Jude  of  the  epistle? 
(2)  Did  he  write  the  epistle  ? 

9.  The  problem  of  the  minor  Johannine  Epistles. 
That  the  First  Epistle  of  John  is  by  the  author  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  is  generally  agreed  to.     As  to  the 
second  and  third,   the  question  is  raised   whether 
they  are  by  the  same  author  or  by  another  John, 
sometimes  known  as  "  John  the  Presbyter." 

10.  The  problem  of  the   Apocalypse.     The  older 
question  in  this  case  was,  Is  the  author  of  the  book 
the  same  as  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  ?     The 
more  recent  one,  as  raised  by  Volter  and  Vischer,  has 
been  given  above. 


NDEX. 


Abbott,  Ezra,  243 

Aben  Ezra,  188 

Acts,  Book  of,  131,  179,  236, 
245;  problem  of,  247 

Amanuenses,  use  of,  60 

Anachronism  as  an  argument  in 
Criticism,  71,  72  ;  and  predict- 
ive prophecy,  72  ;  use  of, 
limited,  74 

Analytic  views,  not  Higher  Criti- 
cism, II 

Anonymous  writings,  20 

Anti-traditionalist  standpoint, 
145  seq. 

Apocalypse  (Book  of  Revelation), 
179,  1 80, 236,  245,  248  ;  prob- 
lem of,  248 

Archeology  and  Criticism,  119 
seq.;  recent  development  of, 
119;  to  be  used  with  caution, 
124  ;  throws  light  on  the  Bible, 
127  ;  on  literary  methods  of 
Biblical  times,  128  ;  on  tradi- 
tions, 129 ;  on  critical  ques- 
tions, 130 ;  on  interpretation, 
132 

Astruc,  Jean,  175,  193,  194 

Auberlen,  K.  A.,  229 

Augustine,  Confessions,  19 

Authenticity,  question  of,  23  ; 
forms  of,  23,  24 

Authorship,  question  of,  14  ; 
causes  of  false  ascription,  21  ; 
noms  de  plume,  22 


Author,  personality  of,  16  ;  qual- 
ifications of,  17  ;  occupations 
of,  1 8  ;  as  related  to  value  of 
work,  19 ;  habits  of,  19 ; 
moral  character  and  authority 
of,  21 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  33  n.,  79,  208 
Baentsch,  Bruno,  207 
Ballenstedt,  231 
Baudissin,  Graf,  208 
Bauer,  Bruno,  212,  234,  239 
Baur,  F.  C.,   no,  140,   142,  235 

seq. 

Beecher,  W.  J.,  142,  214 
Bentley,  R.,  85,  192 
Bertholdt,  L.,  211,  219,  222  n. 
Beyschlag,  W.,  242 
Biblical  history,  confirmed,  127 
Biblical  theology,  105 
Billerbeck,  A.,  132  n. 
Bissell,  E.  C.,  71  n.,  130,  214 
Bleek,  F.,  70  n.,  200,  219 
Blomfield,  A.,  214 
Boehmer,  E.,  202 
Book-making,  ancient  modes  of, 

29 

Bossuet,  189 
Botta,  121 

Bretschneider,  K.  G.,  231 
Briggs,  C.  A.,  45,  49  n.,  80,  84, 

86,  209  n.,  213 
Brouvver,  P.,  194  n. 
Brown,  Francis,  147  n. 


250 


INDEX. 


Brugsch,  Bey,  133 
Bruston,  208 
Budde,  K.,  206 

Calmet,  228 

Calvin,  186  seq. 

Carlstadt,  185,  186 

Caroline  Books,  60 

Carpzov,  J.  G.,  191 

Carthage,  Council  of,  184 

Caspari,  C.  P.,  220 

Cassiodorus,  31 

Cave,  A.,  214 

Cellerier,  243 

Celsus,  182,  207 

Century  Dictionary,  4 

Cerinthus,  180 

Chambers,  T.  W.,  214,  223 

Champollion,  120 

Charlemagne,  60,  91,  92 

Cheyne,  T.  K.,  44,  217  n.,  225 

Chiliasts,  181 

Clement,  179 

Clericus,  190 

Cludius,  231 

Collins,  A.,  219 

Compilation,  as  affecting  integ- 
rity, 30 

Comprehensive  standpoint,  147 
seq. 

Concinnity,  an  argument  in  Criti- 
tism,  91  seq. 

Conder,  Lieutenant,  121 

Cone,  Orello,  146  n.,  238 

Conjecture,  pure,  inadmissible, 
118 

Corinthians,  Epistles  to,  235 

Cornill,  C.  H.,  206 

Corrodi,  198,  219 

Credner,  K.  A.,  69  n.,  233,  237 

Criticism,  definition  of,  in  gen- 
eral, i  ;  Higher  and  Lower, 
distinguished,  2  seq.;  literary, 
7  ;  historical,  8  ;  Higher,  de- 
fined, 95  ;  Biblical,  10  ;  ob- 
jects of,  14  seq.;  methods  of, 
47  seq.;  relation  to  archeology, 
119;  postulates  of,  134  seq.; 
relations  to  religious  views, 


152  seq.;  history  of,  173  seq.; 

periods  of,  174 

"  Crystallization  hypothesis,"  2O2 
Cumulative    force     of     use     of 

methods,  115 

Daniel,  Book  of,  182,  183  ;  ques- 
tion of,  218  seq. 
Danko,  232  n. 
Darmstetter,  J. ,  208 
Davidson,  A.  B,,  224 
Davidson,  S. ,  238 
Degeneration,  108 
Delitzsch,  Franz,  69  n.,  202,  206, 

217  n.,  218  n.,  223,  225  n. 
D'Envieu,  220  n. 
Destructive  theories  not   Higher 

Criticism,  12 

Deuteronomy,  199,  201,  204,  206 
Development   of   thought   as   an 

argument  in  Criticism,  \\Qseq. 
DeWette,  W.  M.  L.,  70  n.,  199 

seq.,  2O2,  210,  2l6,  223,  225  n-, 

233 

Deitlein,  W.  O.,  240 
Dillmann,  A.,  208,  217  n. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  179  seq., 

181 

"Divination,  critical,"  116  seq. 
Document  theory,  196 
Dods,  Marcus,  243 
Doederlein,  216 
Driver,   S.,    70  n.,   207,  217  n., 

218  n.,  -223  n.,  225  n, 
Drechsler,  212 
Duhm,  B.,  70  n.,  207 
Du  Pin,  E.,  86,  87,  228 

Ebrard,  J.  H.  A.,  240 
Ecclesiastes,  Book  of,  186,  225 
Eichhorn,    J.    G.,    70   n.,    219  ; 

author    of     phrase      "  Higher 

Criticism,"  195  seq.;  on  Isaiah, 

216 

Ellicott,  J.  C.,  172  n.,  243 
Esther,  Book  of,  185,  224 
Eusebius,  178,  181,  183 
Evangelicalism,      in      Criticism, 

164   seq.;    essentials   of,   166  ; 


INDEX.  251 

two  wings  of,  167  ;  recognizes  Hausrath,  A.,  238 

authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  1 68  Havernick,    A.  C.,    70   n.,    212, 
Evanson,  E.,  231  213,  220,  223 

Evidence,  kinds  of,  47  ;  external,  Havet,  E.,  128,  216 

excluded,  48  Hebbelyuk,  220  n. 

Ewald,    H.   A.,  69  n.,  200  seq.,  Hebrews,    Epistle  to,  105,    109, 

211,  216,  317  n.  178,  184,  186  ;  question  of,  247 

"Expert"  judgment,  its  limita-  Hegelian  philosophy,    109,  203, 

tions  and  value,  64,  65  234 

Ezekiel,  Book  of,  69,  105,  218  Heidegger,  191 

Hengstenberg,   E.    W.,    70   n., 

Farrar,  F.  W.,  70  n.,  221  n.  212,  213,  22O,  223,  225  n. 

Feilmoser,  232  Herbst,  21 1 

Forbes,  218  n.  Herz,  210 

"  Fragment  theory,"  197  Hexateuch  question,  193  seq, 

Fraudulent      intention      vitiates  Higher  Criticism   (see  Criticism) 

trustworthiness,  156  Hilgenfeld,  A.,  70  n.,  237 

Fritsche,  210  Historical  method,  67  ;  develop- 
Fulda,  198  ment  of,  199  seq. 

Fuller,  J.  M.,  220  Hitzig,  69  n.,  216,  217  n.,  222  n., 

225  n. 

Galatians,  Epistle  to,  235  Hobbes,  187,  219 

Geddes,  A.,  197,  199  Hoedemaker,  213 

Genesis,  Book  of,  182,  191,  193,  Hofmann,  J.  C.  K.,  69  n.,  240; 

199,  202,  209,  212  school  of,  240 

Genuineness,  question  of,  23  Holsten,  K.  J.,  238 

George,  L. ,  203,  211  Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  239 

Gesenius,  F.  H.  W.,  216  Holzinger,  H.,  207 

Gildy,  243  Home,  T.  H.,  209 

Ginsburg,  225  n.  Horst,  231 

Girdlestone,  172  n.  Huet,  191 

Glaire,  243  Hug,  J.  L.,  210,  231 

Godet,  F.,  243  Hupfeld,  H.,  200,  202.  204,  208 
Gospels,  105,  185,  230;  of  Luke, 

179  ;    Fourth,   179,   180,    185,  Idioms,  as  literary  data,  53 

231.    233»    236  ;    question    of,  Ilgen,  K.  D.,  198,  199 

246,  248  Immer,  A.,  238 

Graf,    K.  H.,  204,  205  ;  school  Inspiration,  fact  and  theory,  170 

of,  206  seq. 

Grau,  R.  F.,  241  Integrity,  a  question  for  Higher 
Green,  W.  H.,  214  Criticism,    26  ;     impaired     by 

Grotefend,  120  editorial  revision,  27  ;  by  acci- 

Guericke,  H.  E.  F.,  234  dent,  28  ;  by  compilation,  30  ; 

Guntner,  232  n.  confused  order   shows  lack  of 

it,  95 

Haenlein,  A.,  230  Introduction (Isagogics) and Criti- 
Haneberg,  232  n.  cism,  9 

Harnack,  A.,  242  Isaiah,    Book  of,  24,  69,  72,  73, 
Hasse,  J.  G.,  198,  210  101,  105  ;  question  of,  215  seq. 


252 


INDEX. 


Jahn,  J.,  2IO 

James,    Epistle    of,     186,    236, 

question  of,  248 
James,  M.  R.,  25 
Jeremiah,  Book  of,  69,  101,  218 
Jeremias,  132  n. 
Jerome,  183  n.,  184 
Job,  Book  of,  70,  224 
Joel,  Book  of,  69,  221 
John,  Apostle,  179  ;  Epistles  of, 

179,  236,  248  ;    Gospel,    179, 

181 

Jonah,  Book  of,  222 
Josephus,  19,  91,  96 
Joshua,  Book  of,  187,  223 
Jude,  Epistle  of,  186,  248 
Judges,  Book  of,  187,  223 
Julicher,  A.,  239 

Kalisch,  M.  M.,  207,  222  n. 

Kamphausen,  221  n. 

Kanne,  J.  A.,  210 

Kautzsch,  E.,  207 

Kayser,   206 

Keil,  K.  A.  G.,  212,  223 

Kelle,  210 

Kidder,  222  n. 

Kings,  Books  of,  185,  187,  223 

Kirkpatrick,  A.  F.,  70  n. 

Kittel,  R.,  208 

Kleinert,  69  n. 

Kliefoth,  223 

Klostermann,  A.,  215 

Kleuker,  231 

Knappert,  208 

Knobel,  200,  217  n.,  225  n. 

Kocher,  216 

K6nig,  E.,  207 

Konig,  L.,  212 

Koppe,  J.  B.,  216 

Kostlin,  J.,  237 

Kranichfeld,  220 

Kuenen,    A.,    70   n.,    141,    204 

seq.,  208,  214  n.,  217  n. 
Kurtz,  202 

Laodicea,  Council  of,  184 

Lassen,  121 

Layard,  Sir'A.  H.,  121 


Leathes,  Stanley,  214 

Lechler,  G.  V.,  243 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  9611. 

Lengerke,  200 

Lenormant,  F.,  220 

Lex  Mosaita,  214 

Lias,  J.  J.,  214,  224  n. 

Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  243 

Literary  method,  50  ;  conditions 

for  proper  use,  56  ;  caution  in 

using,    63  ;    development     of, 

193  seq. 
Literary    form,    a    question    for 

Higher  Criticism,  33 
Lower    Criticism,    distinguished 

from  Higher,  3  seq. ,  24,  27,  28 
Lowth,  B.,  195,  216 
Lliderwald,  219 
Luke,  Gospel  of,  177,  179,  236 
Lumby,  J.   R.,  243 
Luthardt,  C.  E.,  240 
Luther,  184,  185 

McClymont,  J.  A.,  243 

McCurdy,  J.  F.,  133 

McDonald,  D.  B.,  36  n. 

Mai,  J.  H.,  228 

Maier,  232  n. 

Marcion,  177 

Mark,  Gospel  of,  236,  246 

Marsh,  Bishop,  209 

Matthew,  Gospel  of,  236 

Mead,  C.  M.,  14  n.,  172   n.,  214 

Mede,  222  n. 

Meinhold,  221  n. 

Merx,  A.,  70  n. 

Meyer,  C.  W.,  2IO 

Michaelis,  J.  D.,  196,  197,  219, 

229 

Mill,  192 

Moabite  Stone,  128 
Montefiore,  C.  G.,  207 
Moore,  G.  F. ,  32  n. 
Movers,  F.  C.,  69  n.,  212 

Naber,  S.  A.,  244 
Naumann,  O.,  213 
Neander,  A.,  234 
Nehemiah,  Book  of,  224 


INDEX.  253 

Neudecker,  C.  G.,  233  Ranke,  F.  H.,  212 

Newcome,  222  Rationalism,    defined,  161    seq.; 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  219  unscientific,  163 

Nicephorus,  25  Rawlinson,  Sir  Henry,  121 

Noldeke,  Th.,  203  Reithmayr,  232  n. 

Nosgen,  C.  F.,  241  Religious  views  and  the  Higher 

Criticism,  152 

Olshausen,  H.,  234  Renan,  E.,  238 

Order  and  confusion,  data  in  Crit-  Repetitions,  a  sign  of  composite 

icism,  94,  97,  99,  100  authorship,  96,  97 

Origen,   25,   177  seq.,  182,  184,  Reuss,  E.,  8,  69  n.,  203,  241 

225  Reville,  A.,  238 

Origin,  question  for  Higher  Criti-  Rhetorical    qualities,     data     for 

cism,  15  critical  judgments,  54 

Osgood,  Howard,  214  Riehm,  E.,  208 

Ottmar,  198  Ritschl,  A.,  241  ;  followers,  242 

Robertson,  J.,  214 

Palmer,  H.  S.,  121  Robinson,  E.,  121 

Paul,  Epistles  of,  105,  no,  177,  Romans,  Epistle  to,  235 

178,  180,  185,  230,  235,  247  Rosenmuller,   E.   F.  C.,   70  n., 

Pentateuch,   history  in,  70;    au-  210,  225  n. 

thorship  of,  185, 186,  187,  188,  Rule  of  faith,  objective,  158 

194,  212  Ruth,  Book  of,  187,  224 

Perowne,  J.  J.  S.,  202  Ryle,  H.  E.,  207 

Perowne,  T.  T.,  223  Ryssel,  V.,  208 
Peter,  Epistles  of,  no,  185,  230, 

248  ;  Second  Epistle,  234,  240  Sack,  210 

Petrie,  Flinders,  121,  133  Salmon,  G.,  243 

Peyrerius,  188  Sanday,  W.,  172  n.,  243 

Phleiderer,  O.,  238  Sayce,  A.  H.,  133 

Philemon,  238  Schaff,  P. ,  86  n. 

Philippians,  Epistle  to,  237  Scheibel,  210 

Piepenbring,  C.,  208  Schleiermacher,  F.,  232  seq.;  fol- 

Pierson,  A.,  244  lowers,  234 

Plumtre,  E.  H.,  243  Schmidt,  J.  E.  C.,  230 

Porphyry,  182,  183,  219  Scholz,  232  n. 

Postulates, philosophical,  134^. ;  Schrader,  E.,  70  n.,  133,  202 

necessity  of,  135,  136;  classes  Schroeder,  F.  W.  J.,  70  n. 

of,     138;     naturalistic,     139;  Schultens,  J.  J.,  197 

legitimate,  151  Schultz,   H.,  206 

Pressense,  E.,  243  Schurer,  E.,  242 

Priest  code,  88  Schwegler,  A.,  237 

Prideaux,  S.,  191  Seinecke,  70  n. 

Proverbs,  Book  of,  225  Semler,  S.,  229  seq. 

Psalms,  225  Siegfried,  C.,  207 

Pseudo-Isidore,  85  Silence,  argument  from,  74  seq.; 

Pseudonymous  writings,  22  seq.  causes  of,  75  ;  inferences  from, 

Pusey,  E.  B.,  220,  223  78  ;  applications  of  argument, 

Pust  Kuchen,  210  79,     85,    87  ;  conditions     for 


254 


INDEX. 


proper  use,  80,  82,  83,  87  ;  il- 
lustrations, 85,  86,  88 

Siloam  Inscription,  128 

Simon,  RM  189,  228 

Smend,  R.,  206 

Smith,  G.  A.,  217  n. 

Smith,  H.  P.,  208 

Smith,  R.  Payne,  22O 

Smith,  W.  Robertson,  207,  213 

Socin,  A.,  207 

Socrates  Scholasticus,  31 

Solomon,  Song  of,  35,  185,  225 

Sozomen,  31 

Spencer,  F.  E.,  £14 

Spencer,  Herbert,  in 

Spinoza,  B.,  188,  194,  219 

Spitta,  F.,  245 

Stade,  B.,  206 

Stahelin,  J.  J.,  200 

St.  Clair,  133 

Stanley,  A.  P.,  2O2 

Staudlin,  21 1,  220 

Stebbins,  R.  P.,  214 

Steck,  R.,  240,  244 

Steiner,  69  n. 

Stephen,  Sir  J.,  91 

Strack,  H.,  208 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  239 

Style,  as  a  test  of  authorship,  47, 
55,  57,  63 

"Supplement  theory,"  199 

Synonyms  as  data  in  Criticism, 
52 

Synoptic  problem,  246 

Tatian,  Diafessaron,  31 

Testament  of  Abraham,  2$ 

Theodoret,  31 

Theological  argument  in  Criti- 
cism, 102  seq.;  development  of, 
203 

Thessalonians,  Epistles  to,  233, 
238 

Thiersch,  H.  W.  J.,  240 

Timothy,  First  Epistle  to,  234 

Thompson,  W.  M.,  121 

Thucydides,  59 

Toy,  C.  H.,  208,  213 

Tradition  as  evidence,  47  ;  total 


rejection  of,  unscientific,  146  ; 
uses  of,  150  ;  prevailed  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  184 

Traditional  views,  44 

Traditionalism,  143  ;  unsatisfac- 
tory, 144 

Tregelles,  S.  P.,  220 

Tubingen  School,  234  seq.;  latest 
phases,  238  ;  opposition  to, 
240 

Tuch,  F.,  200 

Umbreit,  F.  W.  C.,  216 

Value  of  writings,  a  question  for 
the  Higher  Criticism  to  inves- 
tigate, 36  ;  general  and  special, 
37  ;  affected  by  views  of  origin, 

154 

Van  Dale,  A. ,  190 
Van  Manen,  W.  C.,  244 
Vater,  J.  S.,  197,  199 
Vatke,  W.,  70  n.,  203,  211 
Vernes,  M.,  128,  225 
Vischer,  E.,  245 
Vitringa,  70  n.,  191 
Vocabulary,  as  basis  of  judgment 

in  criticism,  51 
Vogel,  231 
Volck,  W.  S.,  220 
Volkmar,  G.,  237 
Volter,  D.,  245 
Von  Bohlen,  P.,  199 
Von  Colin,  D.,  70  n. 
Von  der  Hardt,  221  n. 
Voz,  G.,  214 

Warren,  Sir  Charles,  121 
Watson,  R.  A.,  214 
Weiss,  B.,  242 
Weizsacker,  C.,  239 
Wellhausen,  J.,  205 
Welte,  B.,  213 
Wendt,  H.  H.,  242 
Westcott,  B.  F.,  243 
Westphal,  A.,  208 
Wettstein,  J.  J.,  192 
Whiston,  222  n. 


INDEX.  255 

Wildboer,  G.,  208  Zahn,  A.,  213 

Wilson,  Sir  Charles,  121  Zahn,  Th.,  241 

Winer,  G.  B.,  70  n.  Zechariah,  Book  of,   105  ;  ques- 

Witsius,  191  tion  of,  220 

Wright,  C.   H.  H.,  222  n.,  223    Zeller,  E.,  237 

n.,  224  n.,  225  n.  Z6ckler,  O.,  220 

Wunsche,  69  n.  Ztindel,  D.,  220 


A     000122320     5 


